Delete a Kanban issue by its ID to remove it from the board and keep project state current.
Delete an issue from the Kanban board
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID of the issue to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete an issue' without stating whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data like comments are also removed, whether it can be undone, or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource, making it appropriately concise for a one-parameter delete tool.
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?
Although the tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, it is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits critical context such as permanence, side effects on related data, and error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for a consequential action.
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 100%, and the single parameter issueId is already documented as 'ID of the issue to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('an issue'), and the context ('Kanban board'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like paperclip_delete_agent and paperclip_update_issue by naming the exact resource and operation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related issue-lifecycle siblings such as paperclip_checkout_issue or paperclip_release_issue. There are no prerequisites, no mention of when deletion is appropriate, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.