Remove Issue Relationship

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a workflow requirement (fetch via get_issue first) beyond the structured data, though it doesn't state whether removal is permanent or requires permissions on top of the hints.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite and the disambiguation. Nothing extraneous.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the missing workflow and ID-source context. Only a note on permanence or required permissions is absent, which is minor here.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that relationship_id is the numeric id field of a relationship object and explicitly is NOT the type ID — a distinction the schema wording alone does not make.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Remove a relationship from a MantisBT issue' — leaving no ambiguity about the operation. The action is clearly the inverse of the add_relationship sibling, and the MantisBT scope is explicit.

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?

'Use get_issue first to retrieve the relationship IDs' gives an explicit prerequisite workflow, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of naming exclusions or the alternative add_relationship, but the context is clear.

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