chain_issues

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-abort behavior, per-pair error reporting, re-run safety, and the Redmine 422 duplicate handling, plus scoping delay to specific relation types.

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 organized logically: purpose, usage, arguments, and behavior. Each sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides exhaustive context for a batch operation with side effects, covering error handling, idempotency, and parameter details. The output schema exists and does not need return-value explanation, but behavior is fully disclosed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: issue_ids with an example, relation_type with a reference to create_issue_relation and default, and delay with applicable relation types. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 description clearly states the action ('Chain a list of issues in sequence') and the resource (issues), making the tool's purpose immediate. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create_issue_relation by emphasizing batch chaining without per-pair form interactions.

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?

It explicitly notes usefulness for enforcing execution order of multiple tasks and references create_issue_relation for relation_type, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is well implied.

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