remove_recruiting_related_issue

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Idempotently'. It adds context about the specific field (`Issue.relations`) and target types, providing useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action ('Idempotently remove'), no extraneous text. Every word earns its place. Highly concise.

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?

The description covers the core action and target types. Idempotency is noted. An output schema exists (not shown), which may cover return values. Prerequisites and side effects are not discussed, but for a simple removal tool this is acceptable given annotations.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., target kinds, issue identifier format). The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the relation type. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Idempotently remove a Huly Related Issues entry (`Issue.relations`) from a tracker issue to a Recruiting vacancy, candidate, or applicant target.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from similar tools like 'add_recruiting_related_issue' and 'remove_issue_relation' by specifying 'Recruiting' targets.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'remove_issue_relation' or other removal tools. The description implies it is for recruiting-related issues, but lacks direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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