delete_issue

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It only says 'Deletes an issue' but omits crucial details like irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., deletion of linked comments/attachments).

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?

A single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness, but current form is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (3 optional params, destructive action) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify whether deletion requires identifiers or returns confirmation, nor the relationship between issueId and issueKey.

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?

Parameters are well-documented in input schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 (deletes) and resource (issue), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from similar delete tools (e.g., delete_project, delete_version), but the resource name itself differentiates sufficiently.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. The agent must infer from sibling names. No indication that issueId or issueKey might be required despite being optional in schema.

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