pylon_link_external_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses both linking and unlinking actions, but omits any side effects (e.g., whether unlinking affects the external issue), permissions required, or error behavior. The "remove" operation is a destructive act yet is not flagged as such.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action (link or unlink) and includes the key sources. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

Combined with a fully described schema, the description covers the essential purpose and supported operations, making the tool's behavior clear. While it omits return values and edge cases, the simplicity of the operation and absence of an output schema make this an acceptable level of completeness.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for 'source' and 'operation', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb "link or unlink" and names the resource "external issues ... to/from a Pylon issue", clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools, none of which handle external issue linkage. It also enumerates the supported source systems (Linear, Asana, Jira, GitHub) to further clarify scope.

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 for when to use the tool—to manage links between Pylon issues and external systems—by naming the supported external platforms. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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