jira_link_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It explicitly labels the operation 'Destructive', mandates the `confirm: true` guard, explains that otherwise the tool refuses with an error, and details the dry_run behavior requiring no confirm. It also discloses the return format (YAML `{status: ok}`), going well beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, each earn its place: purpose, destructive guard, return value, dry_run behavior, and CLI mirror. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains zero filler, making it compact yet information-dense.

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 moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it covers the destructive nature, the confirm requirement, dry_run semantics, and return format. It even provides a CLI mirror for additional context, making it complete without needing to elaborate on edge cases.

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%, but the description still adds value by explaining the relationship between link_id and the discovery tools, and by restating the confirm/dry_run semantics in a way that ties them to the tool's behavior. The baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, and the extra cross-referencing justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Remove a JIRA issue link by its link ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_link_create or jira_link_list. It also names the discovery tools (jira_link_list, jira_read) to find the link ID, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when you have a link ID and want to remove it. It also instructs callers to use jira_link_list or jira_read to discover IDs, and explains the dry_run option for previewing without removal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like jira_link_create or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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