jira_link_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly labels the tool as 'destructive', mandates the confirm guard, and specifies the return format (YAML {status: ok}). It also references the CLI mirror for added context.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the action and ID source, second explains the destructive guard, third gives return format and CLI equivalent. Well front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the return value and the confirm guard. For a simple two-parameter tool, all necessary information (action, prerequisites, safety mechanism, output) is provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that link_id comes from jira_link_list or jira_read, and that confirm must be true. It reinforces the schema's own description, providing practical guidance for how to obtain the link ID.

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 action (remove a link), the target resource (JIRA issue link), and how to obtain the required ID (via jira_link_list or jira_read). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_link (create) and jira_link_list (list).

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 context on when to use this tool (to remove a link) and explicitly requires confirm=true. It references discovery tools for the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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