delete_issue_relation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the delete action and where to get the ID, but does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or any side effects. The destructive nature is only implicit from the tool name.

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 four lines, in one concise sentence followed by a terse Args block. Every word is useful—no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core action and the ID sourcing. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, it lacks transparency about permissions or side effects, which prevents a 5.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by linking relation_id to the 'id' field from list_issue_relations, which is more helpful than the schema's bare integer type. Since there is only one parameter and this explanation is sufficient, it earns a 4.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('relation'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_issue_relation and list_issue_relations. The phrase 'by the relation's ID' pinpoints the exact operation.

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 a key usage precondition: use the relation ID from the 'id' field of list_issue_relations. This tells the agent where to obtain the required input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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