delete_issue_link

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't note that the deletion is irreversible, that confirm must be set, or what happens to the underlying issue relationship. Some added value, but minimal against the annotation bar.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb+resource+identifier, no filler. Every clause (including the cross-reference) earns its place.

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, two-required-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description plus annotations plus schema cover everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only implicit gap is signaling the confirm flag, which the schema already handles.

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 linkId ('Link id from get_issue_links'), issueId, and confirm all documented in the schema. The description echoes the linkId source, which duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (a link between issues) and identifies the key (link id). The parenthetical cross-reference to get_issue_links sharpens the scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling delete_entity_link or delete_external_link.

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?

Tells the agent where the required linkId comes from ('see get_issue_links'), which is actionable prerequisite context. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or naming alternative deletion paths, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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