set_related_issue_target

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the rule creation/update details and the ability to clear the target with null. It aligns with the idempotentHint annotation and does not contradict any annotation.

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, with three well-structured sentences that front-load the main purpose and efficiently cover key behaviors without 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?

The description covers the most critical aspects, but lacks guidance on mutual exclusivity of space and objectClass parameters and does not mention prerequisites. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more complete.

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?

The description enriches the schema by explaining the behavioral implications of the space/objectClass parameters and the targetProject parameter's role in setting or clearing. This adds meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states the purpose: setting the default destination project for related issues from a space or object class. It distinguishes between creating/updating a spaceRule and only updating an existing classRule, differentiating from sibling tools like delete_related_issue_space_target and list_related_issue_targets.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool for space vs objectClass, noting the limitation that it never creates classRule targets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or advise when not to use it, leaving some gaps.

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