Delete work package relation

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/no-undo implied by annotations: it warns that deleting a ``follows`` relation drops the scheduling constraint and may reschedule the waiting work package, that a repeat delete returns 404, and that recreating via create_work_package_relation is the only recovery path. These are exactly the side effects an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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-loaded one-line purpose, then labelled "Pitfalls" and "Cross-references" blocks. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (irreversibility, scheduling impact, 404, hierarchy exception) with no filler.

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 and the description still notes a small confirmation object is returned; recovery path, failure mode, and the confirm gate (documented in the schema) are all accounted for. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool safely is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds behavioral semantics for relation_id (a second delete of the same id returns 404), which the schema does not state. Modest but real added value above baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Remove) + resource (the link between two work packages), with an immediate scope clarification that neither work package is touched, only the relation. This cleanly separates it from delete_work_package and from update_work_package_relation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ("when a dependency no longer holds") and routes the agent away from adjacent tools: use update_work_package_relation to change rather than remove, use update_work_package(parent_id=null) for hierarchy, and treat missing relations via get_work_package(include=['relations']).

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