jira_delete_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds only the source of the link id; it does not state that deletion is permanent or what happens to the linked issues, which is the kind of context that would add value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical and no filler. The phrase 'by its id' mildly restates the parameter name, keeping it just under a perfect score.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: the action, the identifier, and where to find that identifier.

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 100% for the single linkId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's note about the issuelinks field reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema's own description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an issue link by its id'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from the link-creation siblings such as jira_link_issues. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 parenthetical 'find ids in the issue's issuelinks field' gives a prerequisite hint on how to obtain the required input, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus other link-related tools or any caution about the operation being irreversible.

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