remove_related_issue

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 says 'Removes the relation' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive to the issues themselves, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the relation does not exist, or any permission requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It does not clarify how to identify the primary issue (issueId vs. issueKey), what response to expect, or whether the operation has side effects. The agent would need external knowledge or additional documentation to invoke it reliably.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with individual descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no further parameter explanation, but the schema's description of relatedIssueId as 'the related issue to unlink' and issueId/issueKey as identifiers is sufficient for understanding each field. However, the optionality of issueId/issueKey and the required status of relatedIssueId could confuse an agent about which issue is primary; the description does not resolve this.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Removes the relation between an issue and a related issue'. It uses a specific verb (removes) and a distinct resource (relation between issues), which separates it from deletion tools like delete_issue or delete_watching. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling tool names.

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