jira_create_remote_issue_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It explains that links appear in the issue's 'Links' section and are clickable, and lists error conditions (ValueError). This provides good behavioral context without contradicting missing annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and is relatively concise. However, the Args section is redundant with the input schema, adding unnecessary length.

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?

Given 6 parameters (3 required), output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, and error handling. No obvious gaps exist for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by giving examples for URL and title, and noting default null for optional params, but mostly repeats schema info.

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 the tool creates a remote issue link (web link or Confluence link) for a Jira issue. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('remote issue link'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create_issue_link (which links issues) 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?

The description implies usage for adding external links but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like jira_create_issue_link. No 'when-not' or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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