jira_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: each action's parameter needs, the role of parameters (source/inward vs outward), and the special nature of the parent action for setting system hierarchy. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the overall purpose. Each sentence provides useful information without waste. The structure lists actions with their parameter needs in a clear parenthetical format.

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?

While the description covers input parameters and action distinctions well, it lacks any description of return values or output format for each action. Given no output schema, the agent is left without guidance on what to expect from each action, which is a gap for complete understanding.

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 description adds context beyond the 100% schema coverage by explaining the roles of parameters per action (e.g., key is source issue for create, child for parent; target is outward issue for create, parent for parent). This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the 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 manages JIRA issue links and hierarchy, and enumerates five distinct actions (list, types, create, remove, parent). It differentiates the parent action from relationship links, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual actions.

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 explicit parameter requirements for each action (e.g., list needs key, create needs key/target/link_type, remove needs link_id). It also clarifies the distinct behavior of the parent action versus relationship links. While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the guidance is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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