delete_libraries_by_id_issues

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds a useful caveat that the body payload requires prior schema/GET consultation, but it does not clarify what exactly constitutes 'issues' or what side effects the deletion has beyond being destructive.

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 compact: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and short parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the essential purpose is front-loaded.

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 destructive, idempotent operation with an output schema available, this is minimally adequate. It states the target resource and points to GET/schema for body fields. Still, it leaves the meaning of 'issues' unexplained and does not describe consequences beyond what annotations already convey.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies id as a path parameter and body as a request payload requiring schema lookup, which is helpful. However, it does not enumerate or explain the body fields, and id's role as the library ID is only implicit in the endpoint path.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete items with issues in a library.' It also gives the concrete endpoint, which distinguishes this from deleting an entire library (delete_libraries_by_id) or deleting individual items (delete_items_by_id).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction, 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first,' is a preparation step rather than a usage criterion. An agent cannot infer when this tool should be preferred over delete_libraries_by_id or delete_items_by_id.

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