delete_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes an issue' reveals only the core action but omits critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related items, or any permission requirements. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, using exactly three words with no filler. It earns its place by stating the purpose. However, it is borderline under-specified, as the brevity limits its usefulness for an AI agent trying to determine consequences or usage context.

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?

This simple destructive tool has no output schema, no annotations, and two optional parameters. The description 'Deletes an issue' does not explain what the effect is on the issue (e.g., permanent removal), what the response will be, or whether both parameters are required in some combination. For a delete operation, the lack of behavioral context makes it incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both issueId and issueKey. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, and it does not clarify why both parameters are optional or which one is preferred. The text meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate it.

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 'Deletes an issue' clearly states the verb and resource, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like add_issue, update_issue, and get_issue. However, it does not elaborate on scope or uniqueness, so it lacks the richer distinguishing details seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used only when an issue should be permanently removed, nor does it warn against confusing it with update_issue (which modifies). The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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