Remove Jira Issue Link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contract ({ok, linkId}), which the annotations cannot supply, but does not restate irreversibility or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences: action, prerequisite, return value. Nothing is redundant and the operative verb is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return fields. For a one-parameter destructive tool whose safety hints come from annotations, only edge cases (what happens on a missing/already-deleted link ID) are left unaddressed.

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% and the single linkId parameter is documented with its source (jcm_getIssueLinks) and a numeric pattern. The description repeats that sourcing hint but adds no new syntax or format detail, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 an issue link by its ID') that clearly separates it from the sibling addIssueLink and from getIssueLinks, which only reads. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to jcm_getIssueLinks to source the link ID, which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g., prefer editIssue for changing links), so it is slightly under 5.

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