delete_work_item_links

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool is idempotent and silent (204 for stale refs), explains the pre-read mechanism to make no-ops visible, and notes fail-closed behavior. This aligns with annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and provides actionable insights.

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 compact with three clear paragraphs: a one-line summary, identification guidance, and behavioral details. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. Minor improvement could be tightening the second paragraph slightly.

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's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to identify links, behavioral traits (idempotent, no-op handling, fail-closed), and the output fields (deleted_link_ids, not_found_link_ids). The output schema is noted, so return values need not be detailed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. While it offers overall context (e.g., mirroring create_work_item_links), it does not enhance parameter semantics. 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 deletes one or more outgoing links from a single source work item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_work_item_links' and 'list_work_item_links' by mentioning mirroring and identification methods.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool, such as identifying refs from prior creates or from 'list_work_item_links(direction="forward")'. It also specifies the link limit (1-50). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear. An explicit alternative comparison could boost this further.

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