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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses auth requirements, the one-link-per-pair constraint, the requirement to delete before re-linking, and the no-cycle rule for Blocks. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and example, then layers permissions and constraints. Dense but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity; the permuted-relation enumeration is slightly heavy but necessary.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permission model, edge-case constraints, and correct invocation semantics. Nothing an agent needs to link issues correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema already documents all three parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by clarifying relation directionality via the worked example and by explaining how swapping keys pairs with the opposite relation, linking parameter choices to intent.

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 and resource ('Links two issues of the organization') and gives a concrete notation example ('BRD-7 BlockedBy BRD-3'). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, being the only link-creation tool.

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?

Specifies permission prerequisites (canEdit on issueKey, read access to otherIssueKey), provides a concrete workaround for the asymmetric-permission case with the exact relation mappings, and names the alternative delete_issue_link for changing an existing link's type.

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