link_issues

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it creates a link, but omits whether links can be overwritten, if there are access restrictions, or any side effects (e.g., does updating an issue's link affect other relations?).

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Efficiently states purpose and usage in a compact form.

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 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality but lacks return value info and parameter clarifications. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'two issues' implying from_key and to_key, and link_type via 'typed link'. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of enum values (e.g., 'relates' vs 'blocks'), so the agent may misuse the type.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a typed link between issues, and specifies common use cases (connecting work, blockers, parent-child). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue, update_issue, etc.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use (connect related work, mark blockers, set hierarchies), but doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives. Still clear enough for basic guidance.

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