jira_link_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (`YAML {status: ok}`) and the safe dry-run behavior that previews the request without side effects. It also references the CLI equivalent for additional context. It doesn't mention permissions or failure modes, but the dry-run option adds a strong safety signal.

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?

Six sentences, all functional: purpose, parameter guidance, alternative tool, return format, dry-run behavior, and CLI mirror. Front-loaded with the action, no repeated or extraneous content.

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 purpose, parameter semantics (via schema + description), return type, and a dry-run option for risk-free validation. It also names the correct sibling for hierarchy. Minor omissions like error conditions, but for a simple create tool with good annotations in the schema, this is complete enough.

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%, and the descriptions already explain each parameter. The tool description restates the source/target semantics and points to `jira_link_types` (which the schema also does), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific action 'Create a typed link between two JIRA issues' and provides concrete examples (`Blocks`, `Relates`). It also distinguishes from the sibling `jira_link_parent` by specifying that hierarchy links should use that tool instead.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool ('To set hierarchy ... use `jira_link_parent` instead') and advises using `jira_link_types` to list valid link type names. This clearly sets context and alternatives.

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