delete_issue

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds key context: the default is a soft delete that marks the issue as Obsolete, and permanent=True is irreversible. This goes beyond the structured data and is not duplicative.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for the main action, one sentence for the critical default/irreversible warning, then a concise Args list. No filler or repetition.

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 annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description provides all essential invocation details: what the tool does, how parameters behave, and the destructive implications. An agent can safely call the tool with the information provided.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It does explain issue_id as 'ID or URL', permanent with its default and irreversible nature, and instance as optional. This is clear, though slightly terse.

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 states 'Delete a YouTrack issue' which is a specific verb and resource, unambiguous from siblings like delete_comment or delete_work_item. It also clarifies the soft-delete vs permanent delete distinction, adding precision.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transition_issue to an Obsolete state or rollback_issue. It doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest better alternatives for specific scenarios.

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