remove_issue_dependency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (the formerly dependent issue), a 404 when dependencies are not enabled, and defaulting of `dep_owner`/`dep_repo`. It doesn't mention permission requirements, but for a simple mutation the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential details. It is concise and free of 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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, return value, and a key error condition. With fully described parameters and a clear tool scope, it is sufficiently complete for a moderate-complexity 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic clarity by explaining the blocking relationship between `index` and `dep_index`, and reinforces the repo/owner defaults. This complements the schema without duplicating it, earning 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 opens with a specific verb 'Remove' and names the key resources (`index`, `dep_index`), clearly distinguishing it from sibling actions like `add_issue_dependency`. It also explains the dependency direction ('no longer blocked by'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool (to unblock an issue by removing a dependency) and provides defaulting behavior and a 404 error condition. It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives, but the action and sibling context make the usage intent clear.

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