delete_story_dependency

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. The description adds value by stating the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is a useful operational prerequisite beyond the structured 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 two short sentences that immediately state the action, target, and required setting. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description fully covers the action, the required identifier, and the authorization prerequisite. It is complete and self-sufficient for a straightforward delete 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 100%—the schema fully describes the sys_id parameter as 'The m2m_story_dependencies record sys_id'. The description mentions the same identifier but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the exact resource ('story dependency link'), and specifies the identifier type ('m2m_story_dependencies sys_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like create_story_dependency and list_story_dependencies.

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 provides clear context for use—removing a dependency by its sys_id—and the explicit prerequisite 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' helps the agent know when the call will work. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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