link_to_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (linking tickets to a parent) and adds the context that the parent is an epic and tickets become children. However, it does not state whether existing parent links are replaced, whether the parent must be an epic or if that's just a label, or what the function returns. For a mutation tool, this leaves room for ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description communicates the fundamental purpose clearly. However, it omits details about re-parenting behavior (e.g., what happens if a ticket already has a parent) and any constraints, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters: 'Ticket IDs to link' and 'Parent ticket ID.' The tool description adds the epic context but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters themselves. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Link') and clearly identifies the resource ('tickets to a parent'). It goes further by stating 'Stories become children of the epic,' which clarifies the semantic relationship and distinguishes it from siblings like unlink_from_parent or update_ticket.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when one or more tickets need to be linked to a parent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this instead of updating the parent field' or 'not for moving tickets between parents.' The implied usage is strong but not fully explicit.

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