bb_delete_issue

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description merely restates the basic delete action without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data is removed, or what failure cases may occur.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core operation efficiently and is easy to parse quickly.

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 is adequate for a destructive tool whose annotations and schema cover the key safety and parameter information, but it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and what the real-world consequences are. The presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation reduces the need to explain return values or arguments.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the input schema, including defaults for repo_slug and workspace. The description adds no additional parameter context, 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 a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('an issue from a Bitbucket repository'). This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like bb_create_issue and bb_get_pull_request without needing to inspect the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions, such as required permissions or whether the issue must belong to the current repository. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and action.

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