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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a destructive operation. The description adds the critical behavior that the inverse link is also removed, which is not covered by annotations. This is valuable context. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences that state the primary action first and the important inverse-link caveat second. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with three required parameters and an enum type, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists. The destructive nature is already in annotations. The inverse-link behavior is critical and disclosed. This is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. The description's focus is on the action and behavior, not on parameter details, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 (Remove) and resource (link between two issues), and explicitly notes the inverse link removal. It clearly distinguishes from sibling set_relation which adds links. No ambiguity.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for removing links between issues, which differentiates it from set_relation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough from context.

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