jira_version_delete

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses irreversibility, the confirmation safety mechanism, and the return format. It also explains that without reassignment, references are dropped. This is transparent and sufficient.

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?

Four sentences covering all key aspects: purpose, optional reassignment, irreversibility/confirmation, return type, and mirror command. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with main action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description states the return format. It explains the confirmation guard, source of version_id, and what happens to references without reassignment. This provides enough context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds behavioral context: explains the confirm parameter's effect, specifies that version_id comes from jira_version_list, and clarifies that move parameters reassign issues. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 project version' and provides the source for version_id (`jira_version_list`). This distinguishes it from sister tools like jira_version_archive, jira_version_release, etc., which perform different operations.

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?

Provides clear instructions: the tool is irreversible and requires `confirm: true` to execute; without it, no API call is made. It also mentions where to obtain the version_id. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like archiving instead of deleting.

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