delete_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by detailing behavioral traits: irreversible nature, relationship validation, dependency protections, force deletion bypass, impact on metadata and relationships, and audit trail considerations. It comprehensively explains what gets destroyed and safety mechanisms.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Safety considerations, Deletion impacts, Best practices) and front-loaded key information. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the final warning reiterates earlier points), but overall it earns its length with valuable content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. It addresses complexity through detailed safety considerations, impacts, and best practices, leaving no significant gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic meaning of 'force=true' ('bypass safety checks for administrative cleanup') and contextualizing the 'id' parameter ('ensure you have the correct issue ID'), elevating it above baseline.

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 specific action ('Deletes an issue') and resource ('from the task trellis system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'create_issue'. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the permanent removal from a task hierarchy context.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('permanently remove issues') versus alternatives ('Consider updating status to 'cancelled' instead of deletion'), including when-not scenarios ('Exercise caution as deletion... cannot be easily undone') and best practices for specific contexts like administrative cleanup.

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