delete_issue_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur on linked issues, leaving the agent unable to judge risk.

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 imperative sentence states the action and the key, with the sourcing hint immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive operation with no annotations, the description omits the risk/permission context an agent needs before invoking it, leaving a notable gap.

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 0% for the single link_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does identify the origin of the value ('get from get_issue_links') but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema's string type, which is only partial compensation.

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 (Delete) and resource (issue link) plus the lookup key (ID), which cleanly separates it from sibling get_issue_links and delete_issue. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'get from get_issue_links' is a useful pointer to the sibling that supplies the required input, which is real routing help. However, there is no guidance on when to delete a link versus using link_issues or how this interacts with issue updates, so usage is only partially covered.

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