delete_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly labels the operation 'Destructive', states the constraint on stage count/status, and discloses that confirm=true is mandatory. It does not mention side effects on work items in the stage or permanence beyond 'destructive', but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives essential constraints and the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, destructive nature, the business rule, and the confirm requirement. It is missing details on what happens to work items in the stage, which is a notable gap, but the description is still fairly complete for its complexity level.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning for confirm by requiring it to be true, and the project/stage budget rule gives context for project_id and stage_id. The two IDs are self-explanatory from their names and the tool's purpose, so the description sufficiently compensates despite not explaining them individually.

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 'Delete a stage' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling delete tools (delete_project, delete_work_item, etc.) by naming the resource explicitly. The additional context about the minimum 3 stages and one-per-status rule further clarifies the tool's specific purpose.

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 usage context: it warns that the operation is destructive, explains a business rule constraint (project needs >=3 stages), and mandates confirm=true. This tells the agent when deletion is appropriate or blocked. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource-specific name and context make the scope clear.

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