jira_link_remote_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is irreversible, that the tool refuses to make an API call without `confirm: true`, that `dry_run: true` previews without deleting and does not require confirmation, and that it returns YAML `{status: ok}`. This is excellent transparency for a destructive 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 five sentences, but every sentence carries essential information: the resource and what it deletes, the confirm guard, the dry-run capability, the return format, and a CLI mirror reference. It is front-loaded with the main action and flows logically to important constraints.

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 this is a destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: what it deletes, how to authorize, how to preview, where the ID comes from, and what to expect as output. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by indicating `link_id` comes from `jira_link_remote_list`, explaining that `confirm` authorizes the deletion (or the tool refuses), and noting `dry_run` avoids requiring confirm. These details go beyond the bare schema descriptions without being redundant.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Delete a remote (external URL) link from a JIRA issue'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jira_link_remove (which handles non-remote links) by emphasizing 'remote' and referencing the source command `jira_link_remote_list` for obtaining the ID.

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?

It explicitly explains the required `confirm: true` guard and the `dry_run: true` preview option, providing clear context on when and how to use them. It also tells the user that `link_id` comes from `jira_link_remote_list`. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., `jira_link_remove`), so it stops short of the full 'when not to use' guidance.

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