delete_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default behavior (soft delete → Obsolete state) and irreversible permanent delete. However, it omits potential requirements like permissions or issue state constraints.

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 concise with a clear header and bullet-style parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a delete operation with two behavioral modes. The description covers the key details, and since an output schema exists, return values are not required. It could be more complete with error handling or preconditions, but is sufficient for basic use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section explains issue_id can be ID or URL, permanent defaults to false, and instance is optional. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 tool deletes a YouTrack issue, distinguishing between soft and permanent delete. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_comment or update_issue.

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 high-level info (soft vs permanent) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as transition_issue or update_issue. The usage context is implied but not fully explained.

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