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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: the link persists and is visible on both sides, it survives page renames/moves, and re-linking the same page updates the existing link rather than creating a duplicate. It also notes the edit-permission requirement. While it doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, it provides substantial behavioral transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: the action, the persistence behavior, identification methods, idempotency, and permission requirement. No filler or redundancy exists, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: how to identify the target page, the effect of linking, idempotency, and required permissions. It doesn't detail error handling or return values, but those are less critical for a link operation. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the two mutually exclusive identification methods (pageId vs. spaceKey+title) and that linking again updates the existing link, which clarifies how the parameters are intended to be used together. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 a wiki page to an issue.' It specifies the resource and the relationship, and differentiates from sibling tools like link_issues by focusing on wiki pages. The detail that the link appears on both entities and survives renames/moves further clarifies the operation, making it unambiguous.

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 clear instructions on how to identify the page (by pageId or spaceKey+title) and mentions a permission requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like link_issues or unlink_wiki_page. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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