Delete Issue Link

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description must add behavioral context. It adds the workflow hint about using issue_get_links, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or has side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences, directly front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a useful usage hint. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 delete operation with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow. Including the prerequisite for retrieving link IDs makes it reasonably self-contained, though a note on irreversibility would add completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (link_id 'as returned by issue_get_links' and issue_id format). The description's mention of issue_get_links adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a link between a Yandex Tracker issue and another issue', combining a specific verb (delete) with a clear resource (issue link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_add_link (which adds) and issue_get_links (which retrieves).

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 gives a direct usage prerequisite: 'Use issue_get_links to retrieve the link IDs for an issue.' This tells the agent where to obtain the required link_id and implies this tool is used after retrieval. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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