Create Issue Link

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=false, but no readOnly hint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of idempotency, permissions, validation, or the special handling of comments for internal projects. This leaves the agent without useful transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is extremely concise and well-structured, even if it lacks depth.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, an output schema, and 100% schema description coverage. The description is minimal but the schema handles many details. However, it lacks differentiation from other link tools and omits usage context like comment restrictions, so it is adequate but with 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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics; all meaning comes from the schema, which is already thorough.

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 states 'Create a link between two Jira issues,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like jira_link_to_epic or jira_create_remote_issue_link, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Although the schema's comment parameter note suggests jira_add_comment as a fallback, the description itself provides no usage context.

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