link_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: directionality ('originates from' vs. 'other end') and the enumerated link types (blocks / relates_to / duplicates) with default. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or behavior when a link already exists — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place: purpose, three parameters with meaningful semantics, allowed values, and default. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults beyond what is useful.

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 core calling information is present — purpose, parameter semantics, allowed link types, and default — and an output schema exists so return-value details are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations, the description omits behavioral edge cases (duplicate links, side effects, directionality semantics of 'blocks') and provides no usage differentiation from ticket siblings. Adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It defines the directional role of each ticket parameter ('originates from' / 'other end') and spells out the allowed values for link_type with its default — information the schema lacks since no enums are declared. The explanations are terse but add real meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a relationship between two tickets.' This unambiguously identifies a link-creation operation, which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_ticket, update_ticket, and comment_on_ticket. No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the distinct purpose ('relationship between two tickets' vs. create/update/comment on a single ticket), but an agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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