jira_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that mutation actions reject 'full: true', but this is in the schema, not the main description. The description does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or error handling.

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, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, though some details are relegated to the schema.

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?

With 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits return format, error handling, and detailed usage scenarios, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 57% with descriptions for 4 of 7 parameters. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does some work, but the description could provide more context for nested objects.

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 the tool's actions—create, fetch, delete issue links, and list types—clearly distinguishing it from siblings like jira_issue or jira_comment.

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 lists actions and the schema details required parameters per action, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools (e.g., jira_issue for issue operations). Exclusions or alternatives are missing.

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