Link issues

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: link type names are instance-specific, direction is semantically significant, and the comment is attached to the inward issue. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each remaining sentence adds semantic value — exact link type spelling, directionality, and comment placement — without repeating schema details unnecessarily.

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?

For an 8-parameter write operation, the schema already documents apply/plan_id/profile/format mechanics in detail. The description supplies the relationship semantics needed to use the tool correctly. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention response behavior, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that linkType must be the exact instance-specific name, and by reframing inwardIssue/outwardIssue in terms of acting vs. being acted on, which reinforces correct parameter selection.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Link two issues." It also clarifies the core concepts (linkType, inward/outward direction) and points to jira_list_link_types, making the operation easy to distinguish from sibling issue tools.

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?

It gives clear procedural guidance: read link type names from jira_list_link_types and spell them exactly, and understand that direction matters. It does not discuss when not to use this tool versus other writers like jira_add_comment, but the unique operation and named prerequisite provide sufficient selection context.

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