import_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral disclosure, yet it only mentions the timestamp attribute. It does not disclose whether the import is additive, idempotent, permission-scoped, or how conflicts or duplicate links are handled.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key differentiator ('original timestamp') is front-loaded. It is maximally concise, although this brevity trades off behavioral detail.

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 5 required parameters, zero annotations, and no usage context, the single-sentence description is insufficient for an import/mutation tool. It omits validation semantics, conflict handling, and return behavior; the existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (source/target keys, relationship, created_at, created_by), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond saying 'original timestamp'.

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 ('Import') and resource ('link between issues') plus a distinguishing constraint ('original timestamp'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'link_issues', which presumably creates a link with the current timestamp.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The word 'Import' and 'original timestamp' imply a migration/backfill context, but the description does not contrast with link_issues, list_links, or other import tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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