link_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains direction is from task_uuid's perspective, defines 'blocks' vs 'blocked_by', and discloses that ticket reads afterwards include blocked_by, blocks, and is_blocked. It doesn't cover edge cases like idempotency or errors, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then direction rule, then read-effect. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Excellent structure.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, directionality, and the impact on subsequent ticket reads. It could briefly mention removal via unlink_tickets, but that's available in the schema, so the overall coverage is strong.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a detailed explanation. The description reinforces the direction semantics but doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record that one ticket must be finished before another can start.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and inherently distinguishes it from other ticket operations like create/update/delete, while also conveying the core directionality concept.

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 ('this is how you work out what order to do things in') and notes the downstream effect on ticket reads, which gives practical context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it; for example, unlink_tickets only appears in the schema, not the description.

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