delete_work_item_links

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: stale refs never fail, results split into deleted/not_found, and mentions dry_run feature. No contradiction with 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?

The description is highly concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The main action and limit are front-loaded, and essential usage notes follow immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive nature and 4 parameters, the description covers behavior for stale refs, dry run, and directionality. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. A minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisites or permissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the 'links' parameter should contain existing outgoing links (obtained from list_work_item_links) and that stale refs are handled gracefully. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 (delete), resource (outgoing links from a source work item), and scope (1-50 links). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_links and update_work_item_link by specifying 'outgoing only'.

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 explicitly states when to use (for outgoing links) and when not (for back links, use the source item). It references list_work_item_links for obtaining link IDs and explains behavior with stale refs, providing clear context for correct usage.

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