link_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create issue link' only implies a mutating operation; it does not disclose whether both issues must already exist, what happens with an invalid link type, whether the comment field is used, idempotency behavior, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 three-word sentence with zero wasted words and front-loaded action. It is efficient to a fault — the brevity is itself the cause of the informational gaps in other dimensions, but as a concise statement it earns its place.

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?

This is a mutating tool with one parameter that nests four sub-fields, no annotations, no output schema, and a rich family of link-related sibling tools. The description explains none of the linking semantics, the meaning of inward/outward directions, when the comment applies, or how this differs from remote issue links. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing.

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 reported at 100% because the body parameter has the description 'The issue link request.', which merits the baseline of 3. However, that description is nearly tautological, and the nested properties (type, comment, inwardIssue, outwardIssue) are entirely undescribed. The tool description adds nothing about parameter meaning, leaving the distinction between inward and outward issues unexplained.

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 issue link' states a verb and a resource, so it is not a meaningless tautology. However, it barely elaborates on the tool name 'link_issues' and does not convey that an issue link connects two issues (inward/outward) via a link type. The purpose is identifiable but vague, leaving the agent to infer the core semantics from the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tools get_issue_link, delete_issue_link, get_issue_link_types, or create_or_update_remote_issue_link, nor any condition that would select one over the other. An agent must rely on naming conventions and schema inspection to make the call.

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