Removes a link between two work items by specifying their IDs and link type. Use to break relationships like parent-child or related items.
Remove a link between two work items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_type | Yes | Link type: related, parent, child, duplicate, duplicate-of, depends-on, predecessor, successor | |
| source_id | Yes | Source work item ID | |
| target_id | Yes | Target work item ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes a link, but it does not disclose what happens if the link does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects might occur. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple, well-named tool and front-loads the core action.
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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain expected results, error conditions, whether the link_type parameter must match existing link data, or how to verify success. The agent would need external documentation or trial-and-error to use it confidently.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three required parameters and enumerates valid link_type values. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a link between two work items' uses a specific verb and resource, making the operation unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ado_add_link, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ado_add_link or ado_list_links. There is no mention of prerequisites, directionality, or conditions under which removal is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.