pylon_link_external_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (linking) without disclosing critical behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., bidirectional linking), whether it modifies the external issue, preconditions like issue existence, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 of 16 words, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 presence of a complete input schema with descriptions and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context for a linking operation but lacks details on invocation behavior, preconditions, or result format. It is minimally viable.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; it only repeats the purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema already provides sufficient parameter guidance.

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 ('Link') and specific resources (Linear, Jira, GitHub, or Asana issues to a Pylon support issue), with a clear purpose ('cross-system tracking'). This uniquely identifies the tool and distinguishes it from siblings like pylon_unlink_external_issue.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to link an external issue to a Pylon support issue. It names the supported external systems, giving explicit context. Although it doesn't discuss when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling context makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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