Issue links

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's mention of create/delete operations. However, the description adds no deeper behavioral context such as side effects of deleting a link, potential validation failures, or required permissions, leaving the agent to infer these from the action parameter alone.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the three main actions and target resource. It is concise with zero wasted words, fitting the standard for a minimal yet effective tool description.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, making the description's brevity insufficient. It fails to explain that 'create' requires target_issue_iid, 'delete' requires issue_link_id, and that link_type is conditional on the action. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional guessing.

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?

The schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., project_id, action, target_issue_iid), and the remaining params (issue_iid, link_type) are inferable via names/enums. The description itself provides no additional parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters, but the schema already handles most of the load.

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's function with specific verbs: 'Lists, creates or removes links between issues' and names the link types (relates to / blocks / blocked by). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_issue_related_merge_requests, which handle a different resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives/exclusions. Usage is implied by its purpose—managing issue links—but the agent is given no guidance on scenarios that favor this tool over others or prerequisites for actions like 'create' (e.g., needing a target issue).

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