delete_mr_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states two critical behavioral traits: the action is permanent and cannot be undone, and it deletes all replies in addition to the thread. This is solid for a delete tool, though it does not mention potential error cases or permission requirements, but those are not typically expected in a one-sentence description.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and irreversibility, and the second sentence provides actionable alternative guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple delete tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the action, scope, irreversibility, and the alternative resolution tool. It does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists and the behavior is straightforward. Minor gaps like prerequisites are covered by required parameters in the 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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, each clearly stating its purpose (e.g., 'Merge request local ID', 'Discussion UUID to delete'). The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently delete a discussion thread and all its replies from a merge request.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (discussion thread and replies), and scope (from a merge request). It also distinguishes itself from sibling resolve_mr_discussion by explicitly contrasting the two actions.

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 usage guidance: 'Use resolve_mr_discussion to mark a discussion as resolved without deleting it.' This tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, which is the key differentiator. It implies that deletion is for permanent removal while resolution is for non-destructive handling.

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