Link external issue

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: only Jira Cloud/Server are supported, a case accepts multiple issues while a run holds exactly one and a new link replaces it, and the whole batch costs one API call (~0.5s). The annotations already cover safety (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully discloses the replacement semantics and cost, though it says nothing about permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope, then the linking model, then cost and the read-back route. No filler sentences.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope, tracker constraints, per-entity link cardinality, batch cost, and how to verify results. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the enums for entity/action/type are self-documenting, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's note about a run holding one issue largely restates the 'issues' schema description, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 pair (link/unlink) and resource (test cases and runs to Jira issues), and names the supported tracker scope, which immediately separates it from the defect/result/case tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the read side ('Read links back with qase_get') and explains the case-vs-run linking model, so an agent knows which path to take. It does not state when not to use this tool or contrast it with any write-side sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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