jira_link_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that link types are project-defined with common examples, which is useful, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether links are reversible/removable, or what the inward/outward direction semantics mean in practice. That last omission is significant for a link-creation API.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the link-type caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence is a list rather than a constraint an agent can act on.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate but omits the direction semantics of inward vs outward issues, which is the main ambiguity in this API. A bare-minimum-viable definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a marginally broader list of common link types ('is blocked by', 'Duplicate') beyond the schema's examples, but does not clarify inwardIssue vs outwardIssue semantics, which is the parameter detail most likely to trip an agent up.

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 and resource: 'Link two Jira issues', which is unambiguous about the operation. It doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling jira_add_remote_link, so an agent could confuse the two, but the core purpose is clear.

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 never says when to use this tool versus jira_add_remote_link or when not to link. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing — only implied usage from the verb.

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