jira_link_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the tool creates links, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a write operation requiring permissions, if links are reversible, what happens on duplicate linking attempts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context with specific examples. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks behavioral transparency about permissions, side effects, and response format. The schema handles parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation coverage.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions relationship types but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a link between two Jira work items') and resource ('Jira work items'), with the purpose 'to show relationships' and examples of relationship types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_comment or jira_update_status by focusing on inter-issue linking rather than issue modification.

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 this tool ('to track dependencies, blocking relationships, or related work'), giving practical examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., when to use jira_set_field instead for other relationships).

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