unlink_document_from_issue

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the operation is idempotent (no-op if not linked). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description clarifies the specific behavioral trait, which is helpful for an agent.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and idempotency. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple unlinking operation, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and idempotency. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. However, it lacks information on permissions, required state, or potential side effects, which could be important for mutation tools.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are generic ('a string that will be trimmed') and do not explain the meaning or usage of the parameters. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without clarity on what each parameter represents.

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 document link from an issue') and the resource (document from an issue). It also mentions idempotency, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'link_document_to_issue'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no guidance on context or when not to use it.

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