Удалить внешнюю ссылку

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 implies a destructive mutation ('Удаляет') but says nothing about permanence, required permissions, behavior when the link ID is invalid, or what the response contains. For an irreversible delete with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and target. It is efficient, though it is brevity by omission rather than by tight editing.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits error semantics, irreversibility, and how to obtain the external_link_id. The complete parameter schema is the only thing making it callable at all.

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%, so both card_id and external_link_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates only that the operation is scoped by link ID, adding no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Удаляет внешнюю ссылку карточки по ID ссылки' — removes a card's external link by link ID. An agent can tell it apart from add/update external link siblings, though it never names those alternatives or the remove_card_tag sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., link must exist, card must be accessible), and no mention of alternatives such as kaiten_update_card_external_link or kaiten_list_card_external_links for finding the link ID first. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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