jira_link_issues

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the annotations already signal a mutation. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the response carries no id and the link must be read back from the issue's issuelinks field. It stops short of noting auth requirements or idempotency.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the essential type-sourcing and read-back caveats. No filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by explaining the return gotcha (no id, read issuelinks). It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though a note on permissions or duplicate-link behavior would round it out.

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%, so the schema already documents all four params (including inward/outward direction). The description adds little beyond reiterating that `type` is a link type name, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Link two issues'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like jira_delete_link and jira_create_remote_link. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Points the agent to jira_get_link_types for sourcing the `type` value, which is useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., server vs remote links) and no stated prerequisites for the operation.

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