Add issue relationship

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether duplicate relationships are allowed, or side effects).

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second lists types. No redundant information, front-loaded purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, or error handling. For a simple creation tool, this is a gap but not critical.

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%, but the description adds value by listing the exact string values for the 'type' parameter, which the schema only describes as 'name or numeric id'.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Links') and resource ('two issues'), and explicitly lists the valid relationship types, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'mantis_remove_relationship'.

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 implicitly differentiates from removal by stating it adds a relationship, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings or provide alternatives. The list of types provides some guidance on valid inputs.

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