delete_remote_issue_link_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action; it does not confirm whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects linked issue data, whether permissions are required, or how the response appears. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, though it lacks additional useful context like behavior or return values.

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 two-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the resource and identifier, but lacks explicit destructive-behavior warnings and any guidance about output or side effects.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description maps naturally to linkId and issueIdOrKey, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete'), resource ('remote issue link'), and the key identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes this from the sibling get_remote_issue_link_by_id and create_or_update_remote_issue_link, and clearly aligns with the input schema's linkId parameter.

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 description implies usage: deleting a specific remote issue link by its ID, paired with the issue ID/key. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any conditions, but the sibling context makes the fundamental use case clear.

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