Add Issue Link

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by clarifying the directional semantics of the relationship (e.g., 'depends on' means issue_id depends on the linked issue) and stating that it returns the created link. This goes beyond the annotation and adds meaningful context.

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 sentences long, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains relationship semantics with examples, and the third notes the return value. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. With 3 required parameters, one enum, and clear semantics, the description is complete for the tool's complexity. It could mention error cases like invalid issue IDs, but that is not essential given the schema richness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'relationship' parameter with concrete examples, clarifying how issue_id relates to the linked issue. This enriches the schema descriptions without repeating them verbatim.

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 begins with 'Create a link between a Yandex Tracker issue and another issue,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like issue_delete_link and issue_get_links, and the relationship examples further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create links) and provides concrete guidance on choosing the 'relationship' parameter with examples like 'depends on' and 'is dependent by.' It explicitly says to use 'relates' for a simple connection. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient for this simple creation tool.

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