delete_external_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description only restates the deletion implied by the name and adds nothing beyond annotations – no irreversibility note, no permission requirement, no mention of the confirm gate or side effects.

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 destructive action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than a deliberate, well-packed statement.

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 simple single-target delete, the combination of destructive annotations, a fully documented schema, and a clear verb+resource sentence is minimally sufficient. The missing usage/routing context keeps it from being complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (linkId, issueId, confirm) documented inline, including the source of linkId and the purpose of confirm. The description adds no parameter detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (external application link of an issue), which cleanly distinguishes it from get_external_links and create_external_link in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the remediation step after get_external_links surfaces an unwanted link; the schema's 'linkId from get_external_links' note helps, but the description itself offers no routing or prerequisites.

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