attach_external_issue

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose if existing attachments are overwritten, required permissions, or side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word contributes to the purpose with no unnecessary fluff.

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 lacks critical context such as which entity 'id' refers to (test case? project?), what the return value indicates, and error handling. It does not explain preconditions or the effect of attaching an issue to a test case that already has an external issue.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a generic example ('e.g., Jira ticket') but does not clarify parameter usage or relationships beyond the schema, resulting in minimal added value.

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 'Attach an external issue (e.g., Jira ticket) to a test case' clearly states the action (attach) and the resource (external issue to test case). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'detach_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like creating a defect or other integration tools. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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