link_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions link_type options but does not describe side effects (e.g., bidirectional links), duplicate handling, or permissions. The mutation nature is implied but not explained.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the list of options is directly appended.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but lacks details on return behavior, error scenarios, or what constitutes a valid link. Could be more complete given no annotations.

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% but schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Relationship type'). The description adds concrete valid values (Related, Parent, etc.), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent select the correct value.

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 action 'Link two work items' and lists link_type options, which specifies the resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like create_work_item or get_work_item_relations by focusing on linking.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_work_item_relations or link_pr_to_work_item. No when-not or context provided.

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