jira_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns 'DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE', explains the confirm guard behavior (returns error without API call), and specifies the success return format (YAML `{status: ok}`). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical destructiveness warning, then the confirm requirement, success payload, and CLI reference. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destructive nature, confirmation guard, success response, and equivalent CLI command. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke safely.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds behavioral meaning to the `confirm` parameter by explaining the error-if-not-true behavior, and also notes the CLI mirror. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 'Delete a JIRA issue' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for comments, attachments, sprints, or versions. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear operational context by requiring an explicit `confirm: true` guard and noting that the tool will error without contacting the API. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the destructive warning plus confirmation requirement gives enough guidance for a delete operation.

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