delete_issue

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

The description clearly states the destructive action, but with no annotations it carries the full disclosure burden and does not mention irreversibility, permissions, effect on linked notes/comments, or confirmation/return behavior. It names what is destroyed without elaborating consequences.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; every word carries meaning, and the action/resource pair is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter delete, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient, but it does not address the fact that neither parameter is required, nor what the agent should expect after deletion. It is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral 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 100%, so the schema already documents issue_iid and project_id. The description adds a project context consistent with project_id but no extra semantic detail, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an issue from a GitLab project'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from related siblings like update_issue, get_issue, or delete_issue_link.

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 on when to choose this tool instead of related issue operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where deletion should be avoided, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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