Create Remote Issue Link

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of adding behavioral context. It does explain that links appear in the issue's 'Links' section and can be clicked to navigate, which is useful UI/behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a brief note about the result. No redundant or vague wording; every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool. It explains what the tool does and the outcome, but could mention optional parameter behavior (e.g., relationship) or edge cases, though not strictly required.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not go beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline 3 when schema covers everything.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a remote issue link (web link or Confluence link) for a Jira issue.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope. The mention of 'remote' and 'external resources' effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool jira_create_issue_link, which likely links two Jira issues together.

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 that this tool is for adding web/Confluence links, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like jira_create_issue_link for issue-to-issue links. Thus it has clear context but no exclusions.

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