Delete Shortcut Iteration

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the burden of disclosing the tool's destructive nature: it states 'Permanently delete' and 'IRREVERSIBLE,' and specifies the required confirmation flags to execute. However, it omits any mention of the dry_run parameter, which could allow safe testing, and does not describe cascading effects on associated data. The key risk of irreversibility is disclosed, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and uses formatting (caps) to highlight irreversibility and required confirmations. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler.

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?

As a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts (permanent deletion, irreversible, required confirmations). However, it omits the dry_run parameter, which is highly relevant for safely testing a destructive operation, and does not mention what happens to associated stories or whether the operation can be undone. This is a clear gap in an otherwise adequate description.

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 schema already describes confirm and confirm_delete with the exact requirements that the description repeats, so the description adds no new meaning. It does not explain iteration_id format or the purpose of dry_run, which is undocumented in the schema. With schema coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the missing 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 clearly states the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a Shortcut iteration'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_iteration, get_iteration, and delete_epic. The word 'permanently' adds specificity about the operation's effect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archiving an iteration or using update_iteration. It mentions required confirmations but not when deletion is appropriate or what conditions must be met. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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