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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the permission model (canEdit on issueKey, read on the other) and the symmetry property (either issue can be issueKey; same link removed). It stops short of stating reversibility, idempotency, or error behavior for a tool operating on an existing relationship.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the interchangeability and permission caveat. The parenthetical cross-references point to get_issue/list_issues for detail rather than bloating this entry, so every clause 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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, permissions, and parameter symmetry adequately. It could add whether the operation is idempotent or what a failure looks like, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it explains that the two keys are interchangeable for the same effect and that the permission requirement differs depending on which key you place in issueKey. That is operational guidance the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes the link between two issues') and clarifies scope ('whatever its type or direction'). It contrasts implicitly with the sibling create_issue_link but never names it or any other sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing from the name alone.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (unlinking two issues of any link type/direction) and supplies the prerequisites: canEdit on the issue passed as issueKey and read access to the other. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the usage conditions are otherwise unambiguous.

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