delete_work_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the main risk is known. The description adds valuable behavior: 'Returns deleted details for restoration'—disclosing that the deleted data is returned and can be used to restore. It does not explain side effects or permissions, but the recovery aspect is a meaningful addition beyond the 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: two functional sentences followed by a parameter list. No fluff, no redundancy. Front-loads the core purpose before the technical args. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, the description covers the essential: what is deleted and that details are returned for recovery. However, it omits when to use or avoid, potential permissions required, and the exact impact scope (does it cascade to related data?). An output schema exists, which may help, but the description alone leaves several operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing each parameter with a concise meaning: 'issue_id: Issue ID or URL' clarifies the accepted format; 'instance: YouTrack instance (optional)' marks optionality. This is more informative than the bare schema titles, though examples or further constraints are absent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a work item.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_issue or delete_comment by explicitly naming the resource type. The scope is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with related tools like update_work_item or add_work_item. The usage context is only implicit in the name and brief description.

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