delete_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive nature ('Permanently delete') but does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, potential impacts on related data, or authorization requirements. The term 'permanently' hints at irreversibility, adding some value, but the description is otherwise minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and key parameter relevance. There is no unnecessary information, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 complexity is low (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context like the need for authorization, the permanent nature of the action, and any prerequisites. For a destructive operation, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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 compensate for the parameters. It mentions 'by number' which clarifies the 'number' parameter's role, but it does not explain the meaning of 'owner' and 'repo' beyond their names. The schema provides their types, and the description adds only a slight clarification for 'number'.

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 'issue by number', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_milestones or create_project, though it does not explicitly name any siblings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as permissions required to delete an issue, or any conditions under which deletion should be avoided.

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