create_work_item_links

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: atomicity, validation and error raising before POST, rollback on 4xx, phantom success scenario, explanation of link_ids. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Slightly verbose but each sentence adds unique value; front-loaded with core purpose. Would benefit from slight tightening but is justified given the complexity of the operation.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: creation, validation, atomicity, error handling, edge cases (phantom success), and output interpretation (link_ids). With output schema present, description need not detail return values but still mentions key output field.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage: defaults (target_project_id to source), revision pinning behavior, suspect flag semantics, meaning of link_ids in output. Provides practical context for each parameter.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'links', and specifies the scope 'from one source work item, atomically' and batch size '1-50'. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_work_item_link and delete_work_item_links.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (creating links), error handling (rollback on 4xx, re-query before retry), and special case verification (phantom success with document-linked items). While not explicitly excluding alternatives, the context differentiates by action type.

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