Link to Epic

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

The description only states the action and adds no extra behavioral context. The annotation destructiveHint already signals mutation, but the description does not disclose additional traits like whether it replaces existing epic links, idempotency, or side effects. With annotations present, it fails to add value beyond them.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no wasted text.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and destructiveHint annotation, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. The only gap is lack of explicit differentiation from generic link tools, but the epic-specific scope mitigates this.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions and examples for both issue_key and epic_key. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Link' with a clear resource scope: 'an existing issue to an epic.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_create_issue_link by specifying the epic relationship, and includes no ambiguity about the operation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_issue_link or jira_remove_issue_link. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its use case, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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