addRelatedIssue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Add related issue' without indicating whether this creates a persistent relation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens to existing relations. The absence of any behavioral detail makes this tool opaque.

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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, it omits essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, required path and body params), the lack of annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the domain concept of 'related issue', the return value, or any side effects, leaving major gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The schema shows required pathParams (format, projectId, repositoryId, revision) and bodyParams (issue_id), but the description adds no meaning about what these parameters represent or how they relate to the operation.

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 'Add related issue' states an action and object, but it is too vague to explain what 'related issue' means in this context. It does not mention that it links an issue to a repository revision (as the path parameters suggest), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like createIssueRelation or removeRelatedIssue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createIssueRelation or removeRelatedIssue. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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