Delete work package relation

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and non-idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial context: deleting a 'follows' relation may trigger rescheduling, there is no undo, and a second delete returns 404. It also explains the confirm parameter's role in avoiding accidental deletion. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-structured with a clear lead, a 'Pitfalls' section, and cross-references. Each sentence earns its place, and it is succinct despite covering multiple nuances. It is neither under-specified nor bloated.

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?

Given the destructive nature of the tool, the description covers all critical aspects: side effects, non-reversibility, idempotency behavior, and alternative tools. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description is complete for an agent to invoke this tool safely and correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the confirm requirement and the source of relation_id. The description itself adds almost no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The mention of confirm=false behavior in the description is redundant with 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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Remove the link between two work packages.' It goes on to distinguish this from sibling tools like update_work_package_relation and delete_work_package, and clarifies that parent/child hierarchy is not a relation. This makes the tool's exact scope immediately obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use it when a dependency no longer holds') and provides concrete alternatives: 'update_work_package_relation changes a relation instead of removing it' and 'clear it with update_work_package(parent_id=null)' for hierarchy. This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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