delete_file_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by clarifying the blast radius: the action is irreversible yet the actual file in external storage survives. It omits the two-step preview/confirm behavior, which is a notable gap for an irreversible operation, but that is documented in the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the two facts that matter most (irreversibility, file retention). No waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents both parameters. The one missing piece is routing guidance among the many delete_* siblings, but for a simple two-param mutation the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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% – file_link_id points to list_work_package_file_links and confirm spells out the preview/apply semantics. The description contributes nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete a file link) and immediately scopes the effect by noting the underlying file remains in external storage, which distinguishes it from delete_attachment. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive nature and the 'file link only' scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives such as delete_attachment or delete_work_package_wiki_link. The preview/confirm workflow is delegated entirely to the schema.

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