remove_work_item_relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no context about permanence, side effects, or required authentication. It merely restates the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the effect on existing data, whether the operation is reversible, or any result/confirmation. The three required parameters and their roles are not explained beyond the minimal schema hint.

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 33% (only related_issue has a description). The tool description 'between two work items' vaguely implies that work_item_id and related_issue are the two work items but does not clarify which is which or what project_id means. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 relation between two work items' clearly specifies the action (remove) and the resource (relation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_work_item_relation and list_work_item_relations. The verb is specific and the object 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_work_item_relation or list_work_item_relations. There is no mention of prerequisites, applicable relation types, or scenarios where removal is appropriate.

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