import_issue_link

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description usefully adds the admin requirement and that all relationship types plus clone/original are supported, but says nothing about idempotency, side effects, or the response 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?

Two tight sentences with the migration/admin scoping front-loaded. No filler, though the trailing note about 'clone' and 'original' is slightly redundant since those are relationship types already covered by 'all relationship types'.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 29% schema coverage, the description supplies migration/admin framing but omits return behavior and the semantics of most parameters. It is adequate to recognize the tool's role but not complete enough to call it confidently.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry the burden. It gestures at 'custom author and date' and 'relationship types' (mapping loosely to createdBy, createdAt, relationship), but leaves the critical issueId vs. issue distinction and the updatedAt/updatedBy parameters entirely unexplained.

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 an issue link') and immediately scopes it as a MIGRATION (admin) operation with custom author and date, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_issue_link. An agent can tell why this exists instead of the standard link creator without opening either schema.

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?

'MIGRATION (admin)' implies the when-to-use condition (historical data import requiring custom author/date) and signals the admin prerequisite, but it never explicitly contrasts with create_issue_link or states when NOT to use it. Usage is inferable 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.