Delete Issue

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces the destructive behavior. It adds transparency by detailing the permission requirements, which is 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing permission context. No extraneous information.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the core purpose and permission requirement. It does not discuss irreversibility or impact on related resources, but annotations fill some gaps.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. For instance, it does not explain the difference between projectPath and iid or provide examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a GitLab issue', immediately conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_issue or update_issue by specifying the destructive action.

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?

The description provides essential context by specifying the required permission: a user token with delete permission in the project, typically for the author or maintainer. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool or mentioning alternatives like closing an issue instead.

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