Link an approval to an issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minor context via the authorization class. However, it discloses no behavioral traits beyond the operation's HTTP method and path. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise with two lines: the first states the purpose, the second provides technical details (HTTP method, path, auth). No extraneous words, but it might be too minimal for full clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, one required approvalId, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose and authorization. However, it lacks explanation of what 'linking' entails, any side effects, or return value (though output schema may help). 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain what 'id' (path) or 'approvalId' (body) represent. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Link' and the resource 'approval to an issue', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_approvals and pc_delete_issues_by_id_approvals_by_approval_id, which handle listing and removal.

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 mentions authorization class ('board_or_agent') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by context (siblings for listing/deleting), but no when/not-to-use instructions are given.

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