deleteIssue

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already communicates that this is a mutating operation, and the description's 'Delete' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions—beyond what the annotation already states. It neither enriches nor contradicts the structured information.

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 extremely short but constitutes under-specification rather than conciseness. It repeats the tool name verbatim, adding zero informational value. A concise description would front-load essential facts while avoiding fluff; this has no content to evaluate.

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 tool with a nested pathParams object and no output schema, the description leaves everything to inference. It does not mention what happens upon success, error conditions, or the role of the 'format' parameter. An agent would be guessing at the request structure and effect.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not. The pathParams object with 'format' and 'issueId' is not explained at all; the agent must infer from naming alone, and 'format' especially has ambiguous meaning (likely response format) that should be clarified.

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 'Delete issue' is a tautology—it restates the tool name 'deleteIssue' without adding any specificity or nuance. It does not distinguish this deletion from other delete tools (e.g., deleteProject, deleteMembership) beyond the resource, which is already obvious from the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios where deletion is appropriate or how it compares to related issue tools like updateIssue or getIssue.

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