Delete Issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose irreversibility via 'permanently', which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about required permissions, cascading side effects (watchers, comments, time entries), or confirmability of 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no wasted words. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness, but structurally it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a permanent, annotation-free destructive tool the definition omits permissions, side effects, and any warning about irreversibility, leaving the agent insufficiently briefed before an irreversible call.

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 0% on the single issue_id parameter, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The parameter is largely self-explanatory by name, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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), and 'permanently' clarifies the operation's nature. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_issue or create_issue, but does not differentiate against any soft alternative (e.g. archiving), and there is no archive_issue sibling to name.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about when deletion is appropriate versus updating or leaving the issue alone. The word 'permanently' is a faint caution but is not framed as usage guidance.

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