Delete defect

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the real behavioral load: cascading loss of result links, irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the confirmation gate, and a cost/latency estimate. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: impact, recommended alternative, then workflow and cost. Nothing is redundant and the destructive warning comes before the softer routing advice.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers consequences, reversibility, confirmation behavior, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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% with both parameters documented (id as entity ID, code as project code with pattern/length constraints). The description restates 'project code and ID' without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a defect), plus the scoping keys (project code and ID). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling qase_defect_upsert, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path ('Usually resolving it through qase_defect_upsert with `id` is the right move, so the record survives') and gives the condition that favors it. It also states the workflow prerequisite that user confirmation is requested first.

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