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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so restating 'Idempotente' adds nothing. The description does earn credit for disclosing the return value ('Devuelve las relaciones de la issue origen') in the absence of an output schema, and for clarifying the asymmetric direction of 'blocks' vs the symmetric 'relates'.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the enum semantics and return behavior. The only wasted phrase is the redundant 'Idempotente', already covered by annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly states what is returned. Safety and idempotency are carried by annotations, so the remaining definition is sufficient for an agent to link two issues correctly.

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?

The schema documents both issue-ID parameters at 67% coverage, but leaves the 'type' enum undocumented. The description fills exactly that gap by defining what each of the three enum values means and which direction the relation runs, which is the semantic detail an agent needs before calling.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Crea una relación entre dos issues'), which distinguishes it from read tools like get_issue. It never names unlink_issues, the obvious inverse sibling, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Crea una relación', and the directionality of each 'type' value is spelled out. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to link versus when to use unlink_issues, or on preconditions such as both issues needing to exist in an accessible workspace.

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