Delete Issue

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral context: the operation is irreversible and requires a two-step confirmation flow for non-elicitation clients. It also explains how the confirm parameter behaves differently depending on client capabilities, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and packs the irreversibility and confirmation details efficiently. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the require confirm behavior, the preview-based deletion, and the interactive alternative. It is complete for a delete operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description's mention of confirm:true and previews largely mirrors the schema's own parameter description, adding little new semantic value beyond what is already structured.

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 issue by id,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_update or issue_get. Despite the minor grammar issue, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on the confirmation workflow: elicitation-capable clients get interactive prompts, while others must call again with confirm:true after reviewing the preview. It doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer issue_update over delete, but the confirmation context is strong usage guidance.

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