redmine_repository_revision_unlink_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a DELETE operation (implying destructive) and explicitly requires 'confirm: true', which is critical for safe invocation. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permissions, but the confirm requirement and HTTP method are significant behavioral disclosures.

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 sentence that states the action, the endpoint, and the confirm requirement with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the necessary safety caveat.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each parameter represents (beyond names), any prerequisites (e.g., the issue must already be linked), or the expected outcome. The agent would need to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is risky for a mutation operation.

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 only 40% (only project_id and confirm have descriptions). The description adds no new parameter information, only reiterating the confirm requirement. It does not explain rev, issue_id, or repository_id, which are undocumented in the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action: 'Unlink an issue from a changeset', with the HTTP DELETE endpoint explicitly provided. It distinguishes from the sibling tool redmine_repository_revision_link_issue by the verb 'Unlink' versus 'Link'. The purpose 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 description implies usage for removing an issue from a changeset, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling link tool or any conditions (e.g., only if the issue is already linked). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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