delete_module_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, and return behavior. It only restates the action ('Remove an issue from a module') without any context beyond the verb itself. The second sentence 'Unassign module from issue' adds no behavioral detail.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a redundant restatement of the first. It could be more concise by merging into one sentence, yet the Args structure is clean and readable.

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 three-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., whether the issue itself is deleted) and usage guidance, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 0%, but the Args section in the description compensates by explaining the semantic role of each ID (project containing the module, module containing the issue, issue to remove). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property titles, though it lacks format or value constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('issue from a module'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_module, delete_issue, and add_module_issues. The phrasing is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies usage (when you want to remove an issue from a module) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention related tools like add_module_issues. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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