Link Jira issues

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context that typeName must be available in the specific Jira instance, but it does not explain permission requirements, duplicate-link behavior, or directionality.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the only specific guidance it provides.

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 four parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, the description does too little. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not explain inward/outward issue direction or the comment parameter, which are necessary for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains typeName with examples like Blocks or Relates, but it says nothing about inwardIssueKey, outwardIssueKey, or the optional comment parameter, leaving critical directionality semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Create an issue link." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as jira_add_comment or jira_add_worklog, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it creates an issue link, and it gives guidance on choosing a valid typeName. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus other Jira tools or mention any exclusions.

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