Remove Issue Relationship

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context: it removes a relationship, and the parameter clarification helps avoid misuse. No contradictions 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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second provides prerequisite, third clarifies parameter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with action. 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?

For a simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and how to use it. Missing return value or post-condition description, but these are not critical given the tool's nature.

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 critical clarification: 'the relationship_id is the numeric id field of a relationship object in the issue's relationships array (not the type ID).' This prevents a common confusion and enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Remove a relationship from a MantisBT issue,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'add_relationship' and other issue-related tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_issue first to retrieve the relationship IDs.' Also clarifies that the relationship_id is the numeric id from the relationships array, not the type ID. Missing when-not-to-use or alternative considerations, but the prerequisite is clear.

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