pylon_delete_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly notes irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and the destructive nature, but omits details like required permissions or side effects on related data.

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?

Two concise sentences with a prominent warning emoji. Front-loaded with critical information and no unnecessary words.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, irreversibility, and a caution. Missing details like error behavior or permissions are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, 'issue_id', has a clear description in the schema ('Pylon issue ID to permanently delete'). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a Pylon issue'). The verb 'delete' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pylon_update_issue' or 'pylon_snooze_issue'.

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 warns to 'verify the correct issue ID before proceeding' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update instead). It implies cautious usage but lacks explicit guidance on context.

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