QMetry: Link Test Case to Issues

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it creates links rather than performing a destructive action. It adds an output description ('JSON object with success status and linkage details') but does not disclose side effects like whether re-running replaces existing links or how partial failures are handled.

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 clear sections (Parameters, Output, Use Cases, Examples, Hints) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The main flaw is redundancy: the CRITICAL parameter-name warnings appear three times, and the use-case list adds limited information.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains both parameters, gives a runnable example, predicts the output shape, and points to the right fetch tools for IDs. It lacks only explicit alternates-avoidance guidance and exact response fields, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond schema: it gives concrete examples, marks parameter names as CRITICAL to avoid common mistakes, and explains how to obtain tcID and dfIDs via related tools. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 first sentence states the action ('Link'), the resource ('test case'), and the payload ('defects/issues'), and specifies the key mechanism ('entityKey and issue IDs'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qmetry_link_issues_to_testcase_run or qmetry_link_requirements_to_testcase, which target different entities.

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 Use Cases and Hints give useful context about when to call this tool, such as linking defects for traceability and bulk-linking multiple issues. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings like qmetry_link_issues_to_testcase_run, so an agent must infer the boundary between linking to a test case versus a test case run.

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