ado_workitems_unlink

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds concrete behavior: it errors if the link is missing, requires a specific PAT scope, and mandates matching original parameters. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core purpose leads, followed by the essential usage requirement and error/auth notes. Every sentence 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?

For a simple unlink operation, the description covers purpose, exact parameter reuse, failure behavior, and authentication. No output schema exists, and none is needed. An agent has all necessary information to call it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including the linkType enum explanation. The description adds semantic value by instructing reuse of the same parameter values used at creation, which helps ensure the correct link is removed.

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 states a specific verb (Remove) and resource (an existing link between two work items), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling ado_workitems_link, which creates links, while this one removes them.

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?

Provides explicit instructions to pass the same fromId/toId/linkType used at creation, which is essential for correct invocation. Also discloses the error condition when the link is absent and the required PAT scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the inverse relationship with ado_workitems_link is obvious from context.

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