Link a Yandex Tracker issue to another issue by setting the relationship type, such as depends on, duplicates, or subtask/parent.
Create a link between the current issue and another issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | Key or id of the issue to link with | |
| issueId | Yes | Current issue key or id | |
| relationship | Yes | Link type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond restating that a link is created: no idempotency behavior on duplicate links, no permission requirements, no note that this applies only to issue-type entities versus other entity types.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally 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?
A simple three-parameter tool with a complete schema and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a mutation it omits the one piece of context an agent needs for correct invocation: that relationship values come from configured link types.
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% and the enum for 'relationship' is fully enumerated in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning such as which relationship values are valid in practice or how issueId/issue accept keys vs ids. 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 ('Create a link between the current issue and another issue'), and the scope ('current issue' + 'another issue') is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as create_entity_link or import_issue_link, but an agent can still tell what it does.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given (get_issue_links, delete_issue_link, create_entity_link are never mentioned). It also never says that the 'relationship' value must come from the link types exposed by get_link_types, which is the main usage precondition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.