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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses that permission to edit both issues is required, that the issues themselves are untouched, and that ambiguous multi-link cases return the links listed rather than guessing. These are meaningful behavioral details 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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently covers parameter alternatives, ambiguity handling, and permissions. Every sentence contributes useful information with no waste.

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 destructive mutation tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers permissions, valid parameter combinations, ambiguity behavior, and scope of destruction. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around post-success behavior.

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 parameter descriptions already carry most semantics. The description adds useful clarity about the mutually exclusive alternatives and when the type phrase is needed, though it does not add much beyond the schema's own examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a link between two issues.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like link_issues and unlink_wiki_page, and an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 explains the two valid invocation paths: name both issue ends, optionally with a phrase, or provide a linkId from get_issue. It also notes that ambiguity is refused rather than guessed, giving clear operational context, though it does not explicitly contrast use with sibling tools such as link_issues.

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