jira_link_remote_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter requiredness (though omitting key), the update behavior when reusing global_id, the return format, and dry_run semantics. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or required authentication, preventing a perfect score.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into required/optional params, return format, dry_run, and a CLI mirror reference. No filler; every sentence contributes.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key operational aspects: purpose, required/optional params, global_id update behavior, return format, and dry_run. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly mention that `key` is required and does not discuss error/edge-case behavior, but the schema fills most remaining gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavioral nuances: global_id reuse updates rather than duplicates, and dry_run previews the request. These go beyond the schema's field 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's function: 'Add a remote (external URL) link to a JIRA issue — pointing out to a non-JIRA resource.' This specifies a verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_link_create (likely for internal links) and jira_link_remote_delete.

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 for when to use the tool (for linking to non-JIRA resources) and introduces the dry_run flag for previewing requests. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jira_link_create or provide when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a full exclusion statement.

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