Add Issue Link

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

The annotation set is minimal (only readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries most of the disclosure burden. It correctly discloses the mutating nature ('Create a link') and adds valuable directional semantics with examples, but it does not address edge cases such as duplicate links, self-links, or side effects. The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the relationship-semantics clarification occupies the second. The examples earn their place because the enum contains genuinely confusing direction pairs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the one subtly tricky aspect (link directionality), which is the main source of agent error here. The only real omission is explicit routing to issue_delete_link/issue_get_links, which is more of a usage-guidance concern.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value by concretely disambiguating the trickiest direction pairs ('depends on' vs 'is dependent by') and defining 'relates' as a plain connection, reducing the risk of reversing link direction. Only three of nine enum values are exemplified, leaving some gap, but the directional principle generalizes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('a link between a Yandex Tracker issue and another issue'), making the operation unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from the sibling issue_delete_link (removal) and issue_get_links (retrieval) without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use the tool (whenever two issues need to be linked) and clarifies how the relationship parameter should be read, but it never explicitly names alternatives such as issue_delete_link or issue_get_links or states when not to use this tool. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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