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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('Borra'). It adds useful context about where relationId comes from, but says nothing about reversibility or error behavior when the relation is missing.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parameter clarification parenthetically attached. No wasted text.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation whose annotations already declare the safety profile and idempotency, the description covers the essentials: what is destroyed and how to obtain the identifier. Only failure-mode behavior on an unknown relationId is unaddressed.

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 carries the burden, and it does so well: it defines relationId as 'el campo id de cada relación' and tells the agent to source it from get_issue/link_issues. It stops short of stating the expected format (string vs. numeric id) or example value.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Borra') plus the affected resource ('una relación entre issues'), so the operation is unambiguous. The parenthetical reference to get_issue/link_issues implicitly separates it from its sibling link_issues, but it never explicitly contrasts 'delete vs. create relation'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this to remove an existing relation and link_issues to create one. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. that link_issues is the inverse) or what happens if the relation does not exist.

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