delete_issue_link

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying the real-world effect ('changes issue relationships'), the required 'issue-edit permission', and error cases for missing links or denied access. It does not elaborate on reversibility, but deletion is inherently destructive and hinted.

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 two tightly written sentences: action and purpose first, verification guidance second, and side effects/permissions/error behavior third. Every clause contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, preconditions, verification path, permission requirements, and error scenarios. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the input schema already provides for project_id, issue_iid, and issue_link_id. 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'issue link', and clarifies the action as removing an existing relationship between two issues. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue_link, list_issue_links, and get_issue_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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to remove an existing issue relationship, and it recommends verifying with list_issue_links or get_issue_link first. It stops short of naming the inverse alternative (create_issue_link) explicitly, but the usage context is clear.

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