removeRelatedIssue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action without mentioning effects, required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant 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?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It provides no additional information beyond the tool name, so it fails to earn its place.

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 tool has nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full input context, expected outcomes, or pitfalls. The presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality makes this particularly inadequate.

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?

The input schema has a nested object with required fields but zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The agent is left to guess what 'issueId', 'projectId', 'repositoryId', 'revision', and 'format' mean in this context.

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 'Remove related issue' states a specific action and resource, making the primary function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like deleteIssueRelation or addRelatedIssue, which could cause confusion about which removal tool to use.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleteIssueRelation or removeWatcher. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context cues in the description.

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