jira_link_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool resolves against instance link types and lists possible relations if invalid. It implies a mutable operation (linking). It could further mention permissions or success response, but the provided information is useful.

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 two sentences, direct and efficient, with no superfluous information. It front-loads the action and provides essential details.

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 description covers the core action, relation direction, and error handling. For a simple linking tool with no output schema, this is mostly complete. It could mention that it creates a link (modifies issues) or the success response, but the current text is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing example values for issue keys (ATY-123, ATY-456) and clarifying the direction and valid relation strings. This goes beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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 tool links two Jira issues, specifies the directionality from first to second, and lists example relations. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other operations like getting or updating issues.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including example relations and behavior when a relation type doesn't exist. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are diverse and linking is unique.

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