Remove Issue Link

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say the deletion is permanent/unrecoverable, whether both issue sides are affected, or what happens if the link_id is stale or already removed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations cover return format and safety, so the description doesn't need to. However, for a destructive operation the agent still lacks behavioral detail (irreversibility, scope of effect) and the sourcing of link_id, leaving it only minimally viable.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents link_id as 'The ID of the link to remove'. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no format hints or guidance on sourcing the link_id, but nothing is actively missing.

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?

Specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('a link between two Jira issues'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the create-oriented siblings jira_create_issue_link and jira_create_remote_issue_link. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation language.

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 on when to use this versus jira_create_issue_link or jira_get_link_types, and no prerequisite noted (e.g., that link_id must first be obtained from an issue's link list or get_link_types). The agent must infer the whole workflow.

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