delete_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible (not a soft-delete), but says nothing about required permissions, whether child items like comments are removed, or whether confirmation is needed.

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 destructive action in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args block slightly restates schema field names, but the added descriptions and example earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive, unannotated mutation tool, the description omits the operational context an agent needs: permissions, cascade effects, and recoverability beyond the word 'Permanently'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines 'key' as the work item key with a concrete format example ('CPD-123') and clarifies that 'workspace' is optional. It does not explain what happens when workspace is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a ticket'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from create_ticket/update_ticket by implication. It never explicitly names a sibling or scoping rule, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus update or archive, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool. The only usage-relevant cue is the word 'Permanently', which is inferred rather than framed as advice.

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