link_user_story_to_epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions default session behavior, omitting critical details like idempotency, error handling (e.g., if epic/user story doesn't exist), and whether existing links are replaced. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks context about preconditions (e.g., both entities must exist) and postconditions (e.g., what the response looks like). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 clarify parameters. It only notes the session_id default, while epic_id and user_story_id are left unexplained. Though parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Links') and the two resources ('User Story', 'Epic'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'assign_user_story_to_user' by focusing on linking stories to epics rather than to users.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a user story directly with an epic reference). The only additional note is about session handling, which does not help an agent decide between this and similar linking/assignment tools.

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