Remove Issue Link

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds value by listing specific error conditions (ValueError for missing link_id, read-only mode, or Jira client unavailability) and stating the return format (JSON success string).

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 3 sentences, front-loading the purpose, then listing arguments, returns, and raises in a structured format. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 simple tool (1 param, clear schema, annotations with destructiveHint, and an output schema indicated by 'Returns: JSON string indicating success'), the description provides sufficient context including error conditions, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke safely.

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% (1 parameter with a clear description in the schema). The description restates the parameter's purpose but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Remove a link between two Jira issues.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue_link and jira_link_to_epic, which create links.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action is self-explanatory and the parameter link_id is clearly indicated. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use, which limits its utility for an AI agent.

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