Create Issue Link

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, which is consistent with creating a link. The description adds that it raises ValueError in read-only mode, but does not elaborate on other side effects (e.g., whether links can be reversed). The behavioral context provided is adequate but minimal beyond the annotation.

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 uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It is moderately concise but includes redundant mentions of 'ctx' (not in schema) and full parameter lines. The main purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the docstring could be shorter by removing the ctx line and using a more compact description.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), the description covers all parameters, return values, and error cases. The output schema exists (context signal), so return details are not required. The description lacks a brief usage example or mention of typical link types (e.g., 'Blocks'), but it is largely complete for an experienced agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists parameters with types and defaults, but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. For example, it repeats the schema's descriptions of inward/outward_issue_key but does not clarify concepts like 'source' vs 'target' in more detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a link between two Jira issues.' The docstring details parameters like link_type, inward_issue_key, outward_issue_key, and the return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like jira_remove_issue_link and jira_link_to_epic.

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 usage by listing required parameters and error conditions (ValueError for missing fields, read-only mode, or Jira client unavailable). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like jira_link_to_epic or jira_create_remote_issue_link, nor does it provide a when-not-to-use guideline.

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