deleteLinkedWorkItem

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It correctly identifies the tool's action (deletion of specific links) and notes it mirrors a Java API method. However, it does not mention permissions required, idempotency, or side effects on related entities.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that convey all necessary information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides important nuance about scope.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a deletion tool. It states what is deleted and what is not. It could be improved by mentioning the outcome (e.g., success response) or error conditions, but these are often standard.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 deletes direct outgoing links to other Work Items, and distinguishes it from external links or backlinks. It also identifies the sibling tool deleteLinkedWorkItems (plural) as different, though not explicitly. The mention of 'same as the corresponding Java API method' adds specificity.

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 provides a negative statement ('Does not pertain to external links or backlinks'), which gives some guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like deleteExternallyLinkedWorkItem or deleteLinkedWorkItems (plural), nor does it state prerequisites or context for use.

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