link_issues

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral context. It states the core mutation ('Create a link') but does not mention permission requirements, whether duplicate links are allowed or rejected, what happens on invalid link types, or how the relationship appears on both issues. The directional examples add some context but largely duplicate the parameter schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then supplies the most useful supporting detail about common link types. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 relatively simple three-parameter tool, the description plus the fully descriptive input schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks an explicit alternative to unlink and does not describe return values or error cases, but those are not strictly necessary to make the call.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing common link types like 'Blocks', 'Relates', 'Duplicate', and 'Cloners', and by clarifying directional wording such as 'blocks' vs 'is blocked by'. This helps the agent choose valid values for link_type and correctly assign outward/inward issues.

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 opening sentence, 'Create a link between two Jira issues,' uses a specific verb and target resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. The common link types section also helps an agent understand the scope of the operation. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like unlink_issues by stating creation rather than removal.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to link two Jira issues. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as unlink_issues for removing an existing link, so the guidance 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.