jira_create_remote_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 discloses that the tool modifies the issue (links appear in 'Links' section) and raises ValueError if in read-only mode or when Jira client is unavailable, providing useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or other side-effect details, leaving gaps.

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 starts with an effective one-sentence summary but then includes a full Args section that repeats information already present in the input schema, making it longer than necessary. The Raises and Returns sections are useful, but the Args block does not earn its place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with output schema, the description covers the operation, link placement, input expectations, return format, and error conditions. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling link tools, but overall provides sufficient operational context. The output schema exists, so detailed return fields are not required.

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% with all six parameters described in the schema. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema descriptions, adding marginal value (e.g., 'URL can be any web page or Confluence page') but not fundamentally explaining semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 remote issue link (web link or Confluence link) for a Jira issue' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains that links appear in the issue's 'Links' section, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling jira_create_issue_link for issue-to-issue links, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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 communicates the use case ('allows you to add web links and Confluence links to Jira issues') and where the links appear, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as pointing to jira_create_issue_link for linking issues together.

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