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

The description transparently explains idempotent retry behavior ('exact retry reuses the link') and conflict behavior ('linking an epic already belonging to another project conflicts'). It also clarifies excluded side effects. It does not mention auth/permissions, but the annotations do not contradict the description.

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 three concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently adds edge-case and non-goal information.

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?

The description covers the core action, idempotency, conflicts, and what the tool does not do. It omits explicit mention of return values or error behavior, but an output schema is present and return values need not be explained in the description.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It implies ticket_id is the epic and project_id is the target project, but it does not explicitly map each parameter or explain additional constraints like required ownership or parentless status per parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('link') and the specific object ('existing owned parentless epic') and target ('this project'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related actions by saying it does not reparent, claim, or execute the ticket.

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 description gives useful usage context: the epic must already exist, be owned, and be parentless, and linking to another project causes a conflict. It does not explicitly mention the alternative sibling tool project_unlink_feature, but the core use case is clear.

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