removeRelatedIssue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a mutation operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or what precisely happens to the related issue. Beyond the annotation, the agent learns nothing about the tool's 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?

The description is extremely short ('Remove related issue'), which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It under-specifies rather than efficiently communicating necessary details. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 the input schema (nested object with five required fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about how to construct the request, what the parameters mean, or what the response will look like. Essential for agent success, all of this is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The nested pathParams object has five required fields, but the description offers no explanation of their meaning or format, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('related issue'), but the resource is ambiguous without context. It doesn't clarify what a 'related issue' is or distinguish it from other removal tools like deleteIssue or removeWatcher. It's not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to differentiate from siblings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent receives no instructional context beyond the bare action.

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