Delete Epic

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that deletion is irreversible ('cannot be undone'), that a preview is returned on the first call, and that confirmation is required via one of two distinct mechanisms. This provides substantial behavioral context not present in the 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?

The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core function and then provide essential safety/confirmation details. No filler or redundant 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?

The description thoroughly explains the confirmation workflow, which is the most complex aspect of this destructive tool. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on related entities (e.g., linked user stories) or specify the content of the preview. Given the annotations and complete schema, this is a minor gap rather than a fatal omission.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (id and confirm) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the role of confirm but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions the preview returned by the first call, but the schema already notes that confirm is ignored for elicitation-capable clients.

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 opens with 'Delete a epic by id', clearly stating the action (delete) and the resource (epic), and explicitly identifies the identifier mechanism. The admonition 'This cannot be undone' reinforces the destructive nature and distinguishes it from non-destructive epic operations like update.

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 explains when and how to use the tool, detailing the mandatory confirmation flow: elicitation-capable clients are prompted interactively, while others must make a second call with 'confirm: true' after reviewing the preview. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., epic_update), but the confirmation guidance is clear and actionable.

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