github_issues_remove_sub_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Remove sub-issue' without revealing side effects (e.g., what happens to the sub-issue relationship, permissions required, or whether the sub-issue is deleted or just unlinked). This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of the operation's implications.

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 extremely concise at two words, which is efficient but too brief to provide sufficient context. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is a minimal viable description but not well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters) and the presence of sibling tools like 'add_sub_issue' and 'list_sub_issues', the description should explain that 'issue_number' likely refers to the parent issue. Without this context, the agent may misuse the tool. The description is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters but only provides trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'issue_number'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Since the baseline is 3 for high coverage, the lack of added semantic value reduces the score to 2.

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 'Remove sub-issue' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (sub-issue), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'remove_dependency_blocked_by' or 'remove_label', which also involve removal of relationships.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., issue must have sub-issues) or when to use 'remove_dependency_blocked_by' instead. The agent receives no contextual cues for appropriate invocation.

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