jira_add_remote_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Attach' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about required permissions, idempotency, duplicate-link handling, or reversibility.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, though the terseness contributes to the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs more than one sentence. An agent lacks the permission, duplicate-handling, and per-parameter context required to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical examples add meaning for `url`, but `issueKey` and `title` remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three params unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Attach) and resource (remote link) with a clear target (a Jira issue), and the URL examples clarify it handles external URLs. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jira_link_issues, but the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, despite the closely related jira_link_issues sibling. The URL examples imply the external-link use case, but there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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