jira_delete

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

The description discloses that deletions are permanent and lists the types of items that can be deleted. However, it lacks details about required permissions, potential side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. Given no annotations are provided, this is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey all necessary information without any superfluous words. It starts with the primary action and then provides critical usage guidelines.

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 tool's simplicity (delete specific items) and the fact that all parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it cannot do, sources for IDs, and a pointer to an alternative. No output schema is needed.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining where to find the IDs for each type and clarifying that issueKey is mandatory for comments and worklogs but not for links, which goes beyond the schema.

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 that this tool permanently deletes comments, worklogs, or links, and explicitly distinguishes it from deleting issues by referencing jira_transition_issue for that purpose. It also specifies where to obtain identifiers for different types.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for deleting comments, worklogs, links) and when not to use it (not for issues). It also suggests an alternative tool (jira_transition_issue) for retiring issues and mentions how to obtain IDs from jira_explain_issue or jira_get_worklog.

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