jira_create_issue_link

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

No annotations are provided, but the description compensates by detailing the return format ('JSON string indicating success or failure') and failure conditions ('ValueError: If required fields are missing, invalid input, in read-only mode, or Jira client unavailable'). It also describes optional comment and visibility parameters.

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 uses a structured docstring style with clear sections and remains succinct. The first sentence states the purpose, while the Args/Returns/Raises sections are compact and informative.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, return value, and error conditions. It could include guidance on valid link_type values or behavior on duplicate links, but it is functionally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter with examples. The description adds a slight clarification by labeling inward as 'source' and outward as 'target', but otherwise repeats schema information.

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 'Create a link between two Jira issues' and the args specify issue keys, distinguishing it from remote issue links and epic links among siblings. The specific verb and resource make it unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its action sentence but does not explicitly state when to use it compared to jira_create_remote_issue_link or jira_link_to_epic. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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