redmine_issue_remove_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. It does identify this as a destructive delete and adds the confirm gate, and the endpoint makes the affected resource explicit. However, it does not state irreversibility, authorization needs, or side effects, leaving some behavioral burden uncovered.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The action, endpoint, and safety requirement are all front-loaded, and every word 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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description plus schema give enough to invoke the endpoint correctly: the action, the confirm guard, and the path parameter. It could add response/error behavior or explicit relation_id semantics, but the low complexity keeps these gaps minor.

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?

Only confirm is documented in the schema; relation_id has no schema description, and the description does not explain what the relation_id refers to beyond the /relations/:id.json path. The confirm:true requirement duplicates the schema rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated.

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 the action directly: 'Delete an issue relation' and gives the REST endpoint, which pins the resource to relations, not issues. This distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_issue_add_relation and redmine_issue_delete without needing their schemas.

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?

It implies usage by naming the delete action and the confirm prerequisite, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as redmine_issue_add_relation or when not to call it. The confirm:true requirement provides some usage context, but no when/when-not guidance is present.

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