remove_issue_relation

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

Annotations confirm idempotency and non-destructiveness. Description adds value by explaining the no-op behavior and the directional logic for 'blocks', 'is-blocked-by', and 'relates-to', which are not in annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, mirroring explanation, no-op note. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Adequate for a simple mutation with strong annotations. However, without an output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., success confirmation) to fully inform the agent.

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 describes parameters with minimal details (e.g., 'a string that will be trimmed'). The tool description does not clarify how 'issueIdentifier' and 'targetIssue' differ, nor does it add semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 75% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Clearly states 'Remove a relation between two issues', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from its sibling 'add_issue_relation' by directly mirroring its behavior.

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?

Provides context on when to use by explaining the mirroring logic for each relation type and noting it's a no-op if the relation doesn't exist. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the mirroring pattern inherently guides selection.

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