remove_template_child

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

The description discloses only the removal action, which conflicts with the annotation 'destructiveHint=false'. It does not explain idempotency, error handling, or whether the removal is reversible, leaving ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word is necessary, with zero redundancy.

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 purpose and a key data source, but lacks details on return values, side effects, and any prerequisites beyond child ID retrieval. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'childId' by linking to 'get_issue_template', but provides no extra meaning for 'project' and 'template' beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 action ('Remove a child template') and the resource ('issue template'), with specific identification via child ID. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'add_template_child'.

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 description implies usage context by referencing 'get_issue_template' for obtaining child IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives beyond the implicit sibling list.

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