Link issues

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral meaning: argument order is semantically significant, and link phrases are site-specific vocabulary rather than free text. It omits what happens on a duplicate link or what permissions are required.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the reading convention, followed by the routing hint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: direction, phrase vocabulary, and the discovery tool. It doesn't state the return value or failure modes (duplicate link, invalid phrase), which an agent may still need to infer.

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 80%; the one undescribed parameter, linkType, is precisely the one the description compensates for by giving example phrases and pointing to jira_get_link_types. It also fixes the positional meaning of fromKey vs toKey beyond the generic 'Issue key' schema text. The optional comment/site parameters are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a link between two issues') and immediately disambiguates the directional semantics with the '<fromKey> <linkType> <toKey>' reading order. An agent can distinguish it from jira_get_link_types (discovery) and jira_get_issue (read) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to jira_get_link_types to obtain the site's valid phrases, which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It gives worked examples of link types but never states when not to use it (e.g., existing link, cross-project restrictions).

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