Link to Epic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is externally available. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what is destroyed or replaced by the link (e.g., an existing epic link), whether re-linking is a no-op, or what permissions are required. No contradiction, but no value added either.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is maximally concise. It is arguably undersized for a destructive mutation tool, which slightly limits how 'appropriately sized' it is.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the core invocation requirements are covered. However, for a mutation flagged as destructive, key contextual details are absent: the effect on any pre-existing epic link and how this differs from generic issue-link creation.

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% and both parameters have descriptions with key-format examples and a regex pattern, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description only implies that both keys refer to existing entities and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource (link an existing issue to an epic) with the 'existing' qualifier clarifying that no issue is created. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools that also create relationships, such as jira_create_issue_link or jira_move_issues_to_backlog.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus jira_create_issue_link, jira_move_issues_to_backlog, or jira_update_issue, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., that the epic must exist or that permissions are needed). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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