delete_entity_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the small detail that unlinking is keyed on the linked entity id, and says nothing about confirmation requirements or reversibility (though the `confirm` param in the schema fills part of that gap).

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping detail front-loaded. Slight awkwardness in 'an entity from another entity', but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a destructive 4-parameter tool the description is thin: it omits the confirm requirement and the entity type scope, relying on the schema and annotations to carry those. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want spelled out.

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 75%, above the mid threshold, so the schema does most of the work (right, confirm, entityType all documented). The description usefully clarifies that the id refers to the *linked* entity rather than the source, but `entityId` remains unexplained in both places.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Unlink an entity from another entity') that an agent can distinguish from create_entity_link and get_entity_links. However, it does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs the related link tools (create_entity_link, delete_issue_link) or any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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