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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that only the link is removed ('The issues themselves are untouched'), that ambiguous cases are refused rather than guessed, and that editing both issues requires permission. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, packs in the alternative calling conventions, the ambiguity rule, permissions, and the no-side-effect guarantee, and every sentence 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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is affected, what is not affected, permissions, and how ambiguity is handled. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the success return value, though it does mention the ambiguous-case response.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value beyond that by explaining how the parameters interact: from+to/type is an alternative to linkId, and the ambiguity behavior ties directly to the type parameter. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 opens with the exact operation, 'Remove a link between two issues', with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling link_issues by describing the inverse operation without needing to name it.

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?

It specifies two clear invocation strategies: name both ends plus the phrase when needed, or supply the linkId from get_issue. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires permission to edit BOTH issues'), but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as link_issues or update_issue.

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