jira_create_issue_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists Raises conditions (ValueError for missing fields, invalid input, read-only mode, Jira client unavailable), which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or other side effects.

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 well-structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded. It is concise without extraneous text, though it could be more efficiently phrased.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema shown; the description notes a JSON string return. It provides parameter details and error conditions, but lacks usage context, behavioral details beyond errors, and does not leverage the potential of available output schema documentation.

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%, so the base is 3. The description's Args section repeats the schema descriptions but adds no substantive new meaning. The Raises section provides error context, but that is behavioral, not parameter-level meaning.

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', which is a specific verb and resource. Among siblings, it distinguishes from 'jira_remove_issue_link' and 'jira_link_to_epic'.

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 like 'jira_link_to_epic' or 'jira_remove_issue_link'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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