link_pr_to_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a link but does not describe any side effects, error cases, authorization requirements, or what happens if the relation already exists. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences: one defining the purpose, one providing a usage guideline. No wasted words or redundant information. It is easy to parse and front-loaded with actionable content.

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 (two required integer params, no output schema), the description provides enough context for basic usage. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases) and no guidance on prerequisites like work item existence make it less complete than it could be.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context about the overall linking action but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides clear semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Link a PR to a work item for full board-to-code traceability.' The verb 'Link' combined with the specific resources (PR and work item) matches the tool name exactly and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_pr' or 'link_work_items'.

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 includes a direct usage instruction: 'Call every time a PR is raised.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, providing strong guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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