jira_delete_issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to subtasks by default, or whether the issue must be unlinked first. With annotations lowering the bar, a bare restatement still leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste and the action is front-loaded, but it is so terse that it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is padded, but nothing is earned beyond the name either.

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 destructive mutation tool, the definition is incomplete: no mention of irreversibility, subtask handling implications, or required permissions. The annotations cover the destructive flag and the schema covers inputs, but the description does not compensate for the remaining behavioral risk an agent needs to weigh before calling it.

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 100%, and both parameters (key with pattern and example, deleteSubtasks with default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Delete an issue' states a specific verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name (jira_delete_issue) without differentiating it from sibling delete tools like jira_delete_comment, jira_delete_attachment, or jira_delete_link. An agent can infer the target, but nothing in the text distinguishes scope or intent beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or conditions (e.g., when to prefer jira_delete_link or jira_delete_comment for related objects). The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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