issue_delete

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still adds genuine value by stating the deletion is permanent and by disclosing the subtask rule, which tells the agent an extra flag may be required to succeed. It does not say what happens if the flag is omitted on a parent issue, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature front-loaded before the conditional subtask detail. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.

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 three-parameter delete tool with destructiveness already covered by annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: irreversibility and the subtask flag requirement. It omits permission requirements and the failure mode when a parent issue is deleted without the flag, which is a modest gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so key, site, and deleteSubtasks are all documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'Subtasks require deleteSubtasks: true' slightly strengthens the meaning of that flag beyond the schema's 'Also delete subtasks; default false', but it does not explain key formats (ID vs URL) or site semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a Jira issue.' That cleanly separates it from issue_update, issue_transition, and page_delete, which all operate on different resources or with different intent. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive 'permanently delete' framing, and the sentence about subtasks functions as a precondition for calling it. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as issue_transition (e.g. closing vs deleting) and no warning to confirm intent before an irreversible call.

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