jira_link

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it explains the `full` parameter effect for read vs mutation actions, and the minimal responses for mutations. It does not cover permissions or idempotency, but for a CRUD tool this is adequate.

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 concise (around 150 words) and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a bulleted action list. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, avoiding redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers return behavior (default projection vs raw response for reads, minimal for writes). All actions and parameter requirements are explained, making the tool fully understandable.

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?

With only 57% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping actions to required parameters (e.g., create requires type, inwardIssue, outwardIssue; optional comment). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though some parameters like comment and linkId remain lightly described.

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 explicitly states 'Create, fetch, delete issue links, and list available link types.' This clearly identifies the resource (issue links) and the supported actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_attachment which handle other aspects.

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 details each action and their required parameters, providing clear context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving a minor gap in guidance.

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