jira_delete

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

The description explicitly states that deletions are permanent and that deleting an issue removes all comments, attachments, and sub-tasks. It also requires a confirm=true flag for safety. This goes beyond the input schema by disclosing irreversible consequences and cascading effects.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It groups information logically (safety, options, examples) and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers key behavioral aspects and parameter usage. However, it does not mention what the tool returns upon successful deletion, which is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the resource_type options and providing usage examples. While 75% of parameters already have schema descriptions, the description clarifies when comment_id is required and confirms the purpose of confirm=true.

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 'Delete a Jira resource' and lists two specific resource types (issue and comment) with their effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_create, jira_read, and jira_update by being the only delete tool among Jira operations.

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 clear context for when to use each resource type and includes a safety warning. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like jira_update for non-destructive changes, which would improve guidance.

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