Link to Epic

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint: true, but the description adds minimal extra context: it mentions that it can raise ValueError if in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable. It does not explain other behavioral traits like whether linking replaces an existing epic link or whether it's idempotent.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is somewhat repetitive given the schema, but overall it is not verbose and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic operation, required parameters, and potential errors. However, it could mention that the issue and epic must already exist, and that the operation is destructive.

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 input schema already fully describes the parameters. The description merely lists the parameter names without adding any extra meaning or context, making it redundant.

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 states 'Link an existing issue to an epic' with a specific verb and resource. It is clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create_issue_link or jira_remove_issue_link.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., issue must not already be linked), and no exclusions are mentioned. The description only states the basic action.

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