remove_related_issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens if the relation doesn't exist, which side of the relation must be supplied, or whether the call fails on a missing link. Behavior beyond the annotations is left entirely to inference.

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 no filler, and the destructive action is stated first. It is efficient, though it could have used the same brevity to add one routing or prerequisite clause.

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 destructive mutation with only 3 fully documented parameters and strong annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description gives the minimum needed to identify the operation. It omits error/edge-case behavior (relation not found, partial identity via issueId vs issueKey), which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the issueId/issueKey identity choice and the required relatedIssueId. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Removes the relation between an issue and a related issue'), which is unambiguous and implicitly the inverse of add_related_issue. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools, but the add/remove pairing is clear from the verb and the name.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for undoing a relation previously created with add_related_issue. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus get_related_issues or add_related_issue, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the relation must already exist).

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