deleteVersion

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

The description offers no behavioral traits beyond the verb 'delete', which inherently implies a destructive action. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no new information about side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or consequences. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them.

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 brief, but this brevity results from under-specification rather than efficiency. It lacks any structure or front-loaded key information. While it is concise, it does not effectively communicate necessary details for an agent to understand scope or usage.

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?

The tool has a nested parameter structure and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about expected outcomes, error conditions, or related operations. It does not explain what happens on successful deletion, any restrictions, or how this fits into the broader version lifecycle. The description is inadequate for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. The agent must rely solely on the schema properties (pathParams.format, pathParams.versionId) with no explanation of what these mean or how they affect the deletion. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 version' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (version). It is unambiguous about the operation, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools that delete other resources (e.g., deleteIssue, deleteProject). The resource type is implied by the name, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or conditions (e.g., whether a version can be deleted if it has associated issues). The description is purely a statement of function with no contextual usage advice.

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