Unlink Jira Issue from Test Manager Test Case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation fails if the issue is not actually linked, emphasizes that unlinking is a real, persistent action, and notes the difference in how the issue key is passed compared to the link operation. This fully exposes behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences: first covers purpose and reverse operation, second covers usage details and warnings. Every sentence adds value without any wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and simple string parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it differs from siblings, required inputs, input formatting nuance, failure condition, and a caution. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that jira_issue_id is passed as-is (no prefix) and that all three parameters are required. While not providing detailed types or formats, the parameters are simple strings with minLength 1, so the added context about input format and failure condition is sufficient for an informed call.

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?

Description clearly states it removes the link between a Jira issue and a Test Manager test case, explicitly names the reverse operation tm.link_jiraIssue, and distinguishes itself by noting the difference in passing the issue key. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from its sibling tool.

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?

Description explicitly lists required parameters (project_id, test_case_id, jira_issue_key), contrasts with tm.link_jiraIssue on input format (no org_id prefix needed), and warns against speculative calls because it is a persistent action. It gives clear context for when to use it.

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