update-issue-link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update an existing issue link' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra context on parameter relationships or usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing issue link' clearly states the action (update) and resource (issue link), but it's vague about what an 'issue link' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'update-issue' or 'create-issue-link'. It specifies the resource type but lacks detail on scope or effect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing link), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create-issue-link' or 'delete-issue-link'. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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