Create Issue Link

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not clarify if creating a duplicate link is allowed or fails, nor any side effects. No additional behavioral context beyond the minimal wording.

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 short sentence, which is concise but omits essential details. It earns a 3 as it is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain linking semantics, return format, or error conditions, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the tool description, the agent gains no insight beyond parameter names. For example, the 'link_type' enum values ('relates_to', 'blocks', 'is_blocked_by') are not explained, which is critical for correct usage.

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 'Create a relation between two issues' clearly states the verb (Create) and resource (relation between issues). It distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_issue_link' tool. However, it does not specify the direction or type of relation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_issue_note' or 'create_work_item_link'. No context about prerequisites or the effect of existing links is given.

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