delete_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, but there is no statement about permanence/irreversibility, whether child items cascade, or what authorization is required — all critical for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 words, front-loaded with the verb, zero padding or repetition. It is terse rather than verbose; the brevity is efficient even if it reflects thin content.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits what happens on success, whether the deletion is reversible, and any side effects or permission requirements. Given the simplicity of the tool this is not catastrophic, but the safety-relevant gaps remain.

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 100%, and the single parameter (issue_id, UUID of the issue) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (issue), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. However, it does no work to distinguish itself from the many sibling deleters (delete_context, delete_project, delete_epic, delete_story, delete_summary), so the naming alone carries the differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus close/update an issue, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, resolved state), and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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