delete_user_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no statement about permanence, reversibility, cascading effects (e.g., related requirements or criteria), or required permissions. For an irreversible delete operation, this is a critical gap.

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 single short sentence is technically waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

A destructive, one-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to supply confirmation behavior, effects, and error semantics. All of those are absent, leaving an agent unable to call this safely or correctly.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not its type, whether it is the story ID or a project-scoped identifier, or what happens if it is invalid. The description entirely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'Delete a user story' adds no scope, target type, or effect beyond what the name already conveys. It does not distinguish this from siblings like update_user_story or list_stories, nor does it clarify which 'user story' resource is deleted in the context of the project-oriented siblings.

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 use this versus update_user_story, delete_requirement, or delete_flow, and no prerequisites or cautions about a destructive operation. An agent has nothing to reason about beyond the word 'delete'.

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