create_work_item_links

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing atomicity, failure modes (e.g., 409 on duplicate, rollback), validation (role and target existence), and the phantom-success footgun. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open world; the description adds critical behavioral specifics.

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 thorough but not excessively verbose. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then details key behaviors, and ends with a critical footgun. Every sentence is informative, though slightly dense. Could be more concise but still effective.

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 complexity (atomic batch, validation, footgun), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, constraints, error handling, edge cases, and the need for verification. An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining defaults (target_project_id defaults to source), the meaning of revision and suspect, and the link_ids composite. This context aids correct parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 'Create one or more outgoing links (1-50) from a single source work item', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_work_item_links and update_work_item_link.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating links), provides constraints (1-50 links, atomic batch), and warns about a footgun related to move_work_item_to_document. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, it gives enough context for correct usage.

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