create_external_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the relationship default, but says nothing about what the backlink option actually does as a side effect, permission requirements on the external app/connector, or idempotency of re-linking the same object.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the default-value tip second. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical connector example is the only slightly expendable element.

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 write tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, with a fully described 5-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could do more on external-app prerequisites and the backlink side effect, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including origin pointing to get_external_applications and relationship's 'usually RELATES'. The description's relationship default largely restates the schema's own hint, adding little new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Link an issue to an object in an external application') and scope (via a connector, e.g. Jira), which implicitly separates it from the internal-linking sibling create_issue_link. It stops short of naming the sibling that it should not be confused with, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

It gives a conditional default ('Use relationship "RELATES" unless the app docs say otherwise'), which is useful invocation guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative (e.g. vs create_issue_link or get_external_links), and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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