Delete an issue document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Delete' adds little new information. The authorization class ('board_or_agent') is a useful addition, but overall the description does not reveal behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short but includes a redundant first sentence that repeats the title. It is front-loaded with the purpose but lacks depth. It could be more informative while maintaining conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits context about what happens when a document is deleted (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects, constraints). It feels incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain the parameters (id, key, body). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 an issue document' and specifies the HTTP method and path, making the verb and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_documents and pc_put_issues_by_id_documents_by_key by indicating deletion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparison to other document operations.

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