Remove Issue Link

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the destructiveHint annotation already provides. It doesn't mention that the action is irreversible, whether special permissions are needed, or any limitations (e.g., remote links). Since the annotation already indicates destructive nature, the description fails to add further transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words, filler, or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The core action is clear, and the annotation covers the destructive nature. However, it lacks any usage guidance or additional behavioral details, which prevents a perfect score given the potential for ambiguity with related 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter link_id with a clear description: 'The ID of the link to remove.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Remove a link between two Jira issues.' This specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue_link and jira_link_to_epic, which perform related but different operations. The verb 'remove' and resource 'link' are explicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no explanation of how to obtain the link_id or when to prefer this over other link-related tools. The single sentence is purely functional and lacks usage context.

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