createJiraIssueLink

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't note that repeated calls create duplicate links, whether permissions are needed, or what the response returns. Minimal value beyond structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 a non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description should explain link directionality, the required link-type lookup step, and duplicate-link behavior. None of that is present.

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 only 50%: linkTypeName usefully points to listJiraIssueLinkTypes and comment is documented, but inwardIssueKey and outwardIssueKey have no description anywhere, and the directionality of inward/outward is exactly the semantics an agent needs. The description compensates for none of this.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Create a link between two Jira work items") that an agent can understand immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from relatives like listJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks or listJiraIssueLinkTypes, so a reader must infer the boundary themselves.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that link types must be enumerated first), and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no routing help from the description.

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