Delete an issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds HTTP method (DELETE) and authorization class (board_or_agent), but does not explain side effects like cascading deletions or irreversibility, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.

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?

Description is very short (3 lines) and to the point, with no fluff. However, the first line repeats the title, which is slightly redundant. Overall structure is efficient.

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 the tool's destructive nature and the existence of an output schema, the description does not mention return values (not required due to output schema) but also omits prerequisites (e.g., issue existence, permissions beyond auth class) and consequences. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50% (body has a description, path.id has none). The description provides no additional meaning for parameters; it merely states 'Delete an issue'. The underlying schema is minimal, and the description fails to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete an issue' with a specific verb and resource. Among many issue-related sibling tools (pc_get_issues_by_id, pc_patch_issues_by_id, etc.), this tool is uniquely identified as the delete operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use delete vs. alternatives like archiving (pc_post_issues_by_id_archive) or other state changes. The description lacks when-not-to-use information and does not mention prerequisites.

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