add_related_issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action and fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether the relationship is bidirectional, whether it requires permissions, or whether it replaces existing relationships). For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation and achieves maximum efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must provide more context. It does not clarify how to specify the source issue (issueId vs. issueKey), what a successful response looks like, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly explaining issueId, issueKey, and targetIssueId. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The optionality of issueId and issueKey is left unexplained, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 'Relates an issue to another issue' clearly states a specific action (relating) on a specific resource (issues), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_related_issue and get_related_issues. It is concise and unambiguous, though it could be slightly more explicit about creating a relationship 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_related_issues retrieves relationships or that remove_related_issue deletes them. The description alone gives no context for choosing this tool in a workflow.

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