remove_issue_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the main behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context about what happens if the link does not exist or whether this is reversible. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description does not expand beyond them, but also does not contradict them.

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 concise and well-structured as an Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant information. The parameters are clearly mapped to their roles.

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?

While the description covers the essential parameters and behavior, it doesn't mention the output format or any special considerations for this destructive operation (e.g., permission requirements, side effects). The existing annotations cover safety but not operational context. For a mutating tool, a brief note on when removal is allowed or what happens on a nonexistent link would improve completeness.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful semantic additions: issue_id is described as 'Source issue ID or URL', target_id as 'Target issue ID or URL', and link_type as 'Relation type to remove' with a default. This goes beyond the raw schema and helps an agent construct correct arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a link between two issues.' This clearly differentiates it from add_issue_link and other issue operations, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage is implicitly clear from the description and parameter names (e.g., linking two issues), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_issue_link or get_issue_links. The 'Remove' verb implies the use case, but the description doesn't articulate exclusions or conditions.

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