jira_link_remote_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: irreversible action, the need for `confirm`, refusal without `confirm`, and the `dry_run` option that bypasses the confirm requirement. It also specifies the return format.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return value (`YAML {status: ok}`). All parameters are explained, destructive behavior is covered, and the preview mechanism is detailed. The description is thorough for a deletion tool.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying the relationship between `confirm` and `dry_run` (dry_run does not require confirm) and that `link_id` comes from a specific list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specifies the exact action ('Delete a remote link'), the resource ('JIRA issue'), and how to identify the link ('by `key` + `link_id` from `jira_link_remote_list`'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle internal links or other operations.

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 explains that `confirm: true` is required to authorize deletion and that `dry_run: true` allows preview without deletion. It mentions the tool mirrors a CLI command, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `jira_link_remove` for internal links.

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