jira_delete

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

Explicitly labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE' and details the safety guard (confirm: true) and the error behavior if omitted. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so effectively.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key warnings. Every sentence adds critical information with no 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?

For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, destructive nature, required guard, return format, and even a command reference. No additional context is needed.

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 coverage is at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that confirm must be true (safety guard) and provides an example for key. This extra context improves parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Delete a JIRA issue', clearly stating the verb and resource. Among sibling tools, 'jira_delete' is distinct as the only delete tool for JIRA issues, so it's well differentiated.

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 explains the confirm parameter requirement but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_transition or jira_edit). Usage is implied but lacks exclusions or guidance on prerequisites.

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