jira_create_issue_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—yet it only states that a link is created. It does not disclose that the operation mutates both issues, requires a valid existing issue link type, or may require specific permissions.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and includes an explicit endpoint. There is no redundancy or padding, though it could have used the brevity to mention key behavioral details.

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 small, fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable: all three required parameters have schema descriptions and the operation is clear. However, the lack of any annotation, output schema, or mention of dependencies like valid link types leaves notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, and the individual parameter descriptions ('Type name', 'Destination issue (inward)', 'Source issue (outward)') are reasonably clear. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Creates a link between issues') and the resource, with the REST endpoint supplied as confirmation. It separates this tool from 'jira_get_issue_link_types' and 'jira_get_remote_issue_links', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 'jira_create_remote_issue_link'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as first retrieving valid issue link types via jira_get_issue_link_types. An agent must infer context entirely from the name and endpoint.

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