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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the link is bidirectional and survives rename/move, re-linking is idempotent (updates the existing link rather than duplicating), and an auth requirement is called out. These are exactly the mutation-side traits annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then result behaviour, identification modes, idempotency, and the permission gate. No sentence is redundant with the title or schema.

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 5-param, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to identify the target, what happens on repeat calls, and the permission requirement. Remaining detail (relationship values, issueKey format) is fully handled by the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real semantic rule the schema does not state: the page is identified either by 'pageId' alone or by 'spaceKey' + 'title' together. The 'relationship' parameter is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource pair ('Link a wiki page to an issue'), which is inherently distinct from neighbours like link_issues (issue-to-issue) or add_wiki_attachment. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires permission to edit the issue') and two identification paths, which imply when the tool applies, but it never says when to prefer unlink_wiki_page, link_issues, or add_wiki_attachment, and offers no exclusions or failure conditions.

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