addRelatedIssue

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

The description discloses nothing beyond the fact that it adds a related issue. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's clear this is a mutation, but the description adds no context about side effects, required permissions, response behavior, or reversibility. It fails to inform the agent of any behavioral nuances.

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 extremely short (three words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about the operation, parameters, and usage. A concise description earns its length by packing meaning; this one packs almost none.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, two required parameter groups, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not specify what 'related issue' means, how the path parameters identify the target, what formats are accepted, or what the response looks like. An agent has nearly no information to call this correctly.

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 input schema provides no explanations for any parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'related issue', 'issue_id', 'projectId', 'repositoryId', 'revision', or 'format' mean. The agent must guess semantics from names alone, which is inadequate.

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 'Add related issue' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with spacing. It does not specify what kind of relation is added, how it relates to existing issue relations, or distinguish it from siblings like createIssueRelation. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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 such as createIssueRelation or removeRelatedIssue. The description provides no context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent is left without any direction for selection.

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