remove_work_item_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: built-in dependencies and custom relations are removed independently, and it clarifies the meaning of is_dependency. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, potential side effects, or error behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation operation.

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 an initial summary, a behavioral note, and a clear args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. No sentence is wasted.

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 complexity of two relation types and a boolean parameter that changes behavior, the description covers the critical decision points and references list_work_item_relations for prerequisite context. It does not mention return values, but for a removal operation this is less critical, and the description is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including the exact meaning of is_dependency (True for built-in dependency, False for custom relation) and the roles of work_item_id and related_work_item_id. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 begins with 'Remove ONE relation between two work items', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between built-in dependencies and custom relations, and the term 'relation' differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_work_item_link. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: it tells the agent to reference list_work_item_relations to determine the correct is_dependency value, and explains when to set True vs False. It does not directly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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