jira_link_issues

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

No annotations provided. Description only mentions routing through an API with JWT, tenant, and company scope. Does not disclose mutation behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is short but includes unnecessary routing detail. The docstring format is reasonable but could be more agent-friendly. Length is appropriate but content is lacking.

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?

Despite simple tool with one parameter, the description fails to explain purpose, input format, or behavior. Output schema exists but is not referenced. Significant gaps remain.

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 has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% coverage. Description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which merely restates the parameter name without explaining the structure or content required (e.g., issue keys, link type). Adds no meaningful 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 states the tool is for linking issues in Jira but lacks specifics about what linking issues means (e.g., creating issue links with types like relates to, blocks). It is not a tautology but is vague.

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 compared to other Jira tools like jira_add_comment or jira_create_issue. No context about when linking is appropriate.

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