Delete work package

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (comments, attachments, time entries, relations), states there is no API-side undo, discloses the confirm-gate behavior, and warns that children are not cascaded. That last point is the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the safety gate, then organized into clearly labeled paragraphs (deletion scope, return, pitfalls/alternatives). The only near-waste is the sentence describing the returned confirmation object, which duplicates what the output schema already provides.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: cascade scope, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, the children caveat, and a recommended safer alternative. Nothing material is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented, including the confirm=false failure mode — baseline would be 3. The description adds a small amount of extra framing by tying the child-check to the id argument and reinforcing the irreversibility rationale behind confirm, but it does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus the key qualifier ("Permanently delete a work package and everything attached to it"), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like delete_work_package_relation or delete_project. The scope of the deletion is stated up front rather than buried.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gates usage ("Use only on explicit user instruction") and names concrete alternatives with the condition that selects them: update_work_package with a closed status to get the item out of the way, and get_project_metadata to discover which statuses count as closed. It also tells the agent to check for children first via get_work_package, which is a genuine when-to-do-this-before rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.