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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (removes link), the prerequisite (requires permission to edit the issue), and a key side-effect boundary (does not touch the page). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, then identification options, then permission and non-destructive behavior. Every sentence earns its place and contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 simple unlink operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: purpose, identification methods, permission requirement, and the non-destructive outcome. It could mention error behavior when no matching link exists, but that is not essential for correct usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: the page can be identified either by pageId alone or by spaceKey+title together. This alternative-grouping information is not explicit in the schema and helps an agent choose the correct parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the link between an issue and a wiki page.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like link_wiki_page and delete_wiki_page, and the note 'The page itself is not touched' differentiates it from deletion. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function.

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 gives clear context for use: it removes a link, identifies the page via pageId or spaceKey+title, and requires issue edit permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with deleting the page is implied by 'The page itself is not touched.' This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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