delete_external_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the deletion action and does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, requires permissions, affects external applications, or what errors/response to expect. For a destructive tool this is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's core action.

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?

The tool itself is simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage alternatives and behavioral caveats, making it minimally adequate rather than fully 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% and both parameters have clear descriptions ('External link ID', 'Issue key'), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific details, hence the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('external link from an issue'), clearly distinguishing it from general link deletion tools like delete_link or delete_entity_link. It states exactly what is removed and the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_link or list_external_links/create_external_link. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the link must exist or whether the issue must be accessible.

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