manage_work_item_link

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: removal of a link is likely destructive and irreversible, relation types have enumeration-like constraints, and permission/scope requirements (organizationId, projectId) are unstated. None of these behavioral traits appear in the description.

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 single sentence is lean with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise for an eight-parameter mutation tool. There is no front-loaded framing of the add/remove/update distinction.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain destructive semantics, the update path, and expected outcomes. The one-line description leaves the agent to reconstruct all of that from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters including the enum, relation type reference names, and optional comment are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 names a verb pair and resource ("Add or remove links between work items"), which is more specific than the name alone. However, the schema's operation enum also allows "update" and exposes newRelationType, neither of which the description acknowledges, so the stated purpose is incomplete and slightly out of step with what the tool actually does.

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 guidance on when to link versus when to use update_work_item, no prerequisites (both work items must exist, relation type must be valid), and no indication of when removal is appropriate. The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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