delete_work_package_wiki_link

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses irreversibility, an internal pre-flight list call whose failures propagate as [server_error], version-dependent behavior (17.6+ required, misleading [not_found] on older versions), the required 'Manage wiki page links' permission, and that a permission failure surfaces as 404/[not_found] rather than [permission_denied]. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious failure-mode context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action and irreversibility, then layers version, authorization, and link-type constraints. Dense but each block carries information; minor overlap between the version note and the permission note (both explain a not_found naming 17.6) is the only redundancy.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema, and the description covers safety (irreversible), prerequisites (version, permission), failure modes, and preconditions (enumeration must succeed). Nothing an agent needs to avoid a wrong or misread call is missing; the preview/confirm workflow is covered by the schema.

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 67% and `confirm` is already documented in the schema, but the description adds genuine meaning: `link_id` must come from list_work_package_wiki_links, and `work_package_id` is not merely an ID but the authorization anchor because OpenProject has no single GET for a link. That is real added value over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a work package's wiki page link') and immediately differentiates from the sibling `list_work_package_wiki_links` and from relation deletion by restricting scope to link_type 'relation'. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-not conditions: inline links are rejected and can only be removed by editing the description text, and relation links must be enumerated via list_work_package_wiki_links first. It does not name the specific sibling tool to use for the inline case, but the routing is strongly implied.

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