Create Remote Issue Link

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

The description discloses that links appear in the issue's 'Links' section and can be clicked, adding behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also notes return value and error conditions, but lacks details on permissions or rate limits.

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 relatively long with an Args section that largely duplicates the schema. While structured, it could be more concise by removing redundancy. It is adequately sized but not optimal for quick comprehension.

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 parameter count and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It mentions the return value (JSON indicating success/failure) and expected exceptions (ValueError), making it fairly complete despite missing exact output schema details.

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 the description adds examples for issue_key format, URL, and icon size (16x16). It clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 it creates a remote issue link (web link or Confluence link) for a Jira issue. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'remote issue link', and distinguishes from siblings like jira_create_issue_link (which links Jira issues internally) by explicitly mentioning external links.

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 that it adds web and Confluence links to Jira issues, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives such as jira_create_issue_link for internal issue linking.

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