remove_github_project_sub_issue

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, etc.): clarifies that neither Issue is deleted, that only a single relationship is affected, that it re-reads both directions, that it persists an audit record including no_change, and that automatic retries are discouraged. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope, constraints, and warnings. Every sentence carries information, though the density is high and could be slightly better segmented for scanning.

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, no-output-schema tool it covers the essentials: side effects, permission requirements, idempotency-aware audit behavior, and retry policy. Only the parameter-level detail is thin, which is a minor gap given the rich behavioral coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the source/target semantics that map to sourceItemId and targetItemId and implies owner/number via 'authorized Project', but gives no format, identifier, or validation detail for the four required params.

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 ('target from source's sub-issues'), and immediately delimits scope with 'Does not delete either Issue. Single relationship only.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_github_project_sub_issue and remove_github_project_blocked_by.

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?

Provides strong operational context: both items must belong to the same authorized Project, and it warns 'Do not retry failures automatically.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when to prefer this over other relationship tools, but the preconditions are clear.

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