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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's key contribution is scoping that destructiveness: "The page itself is not touched" clarifies that only the association is removed, which meaningfully corrects an agent's likely over-reading of destructiveHint. It still doesn't say whether the call is idempotent or what happens if no link is present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then identification, then the permission prerequisite, then the scope caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 destructive unlink with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to identify the target, the permission requirement, and the blast radius. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: the two mutually exclusive identification paths (pageId alone, or spaceKey + title together). That is the one semantic subtlety the per-property descriptions cannot express on their own.

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?

"Remove the link between an issue and a wiki page" names a specific verb (remove link) and both resources, and is the clear inverse of the sibling link_wiki_page. An agent can distinguish it from delete_wiki_page or update_wiki_page without opening any 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?

The description gives the operational context needed to call it: the page can be resolved by pageId or by spaceKey + title, and the caller must have edit permission on the issue. It stops short of explicitly naming link_wiki_page as the counterpart operation or saying what to do when no link exists, so not a 5.

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