Delete a Linear issue relation

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

The destructiveHint annotation already covers the destructive nature, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascade effects, permissions, or impact on the linked issues. It essentially restates the delete operation.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target resource. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive delete operation, the description, schema, and destructiveHint together provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable absence is usage guidance, which is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying the sole 'id' parameter as a relation UUID, which prevents confusion with issue or comment IDs. It does not explain how to obtain that UUID, but for one parameter this is meaningful semantic clarification.

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 states a specific action (delete) against a specific resource (relation) and further clarifies the target by 'relation UUID,' making it clearly distinct from siblings like linear_delete_issue and linear_delete_comment.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but the description gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites, such as using linear_list_issue_relations to obtain the relation UUID before deletion.

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