add_issue_link

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

Description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or any constraints. With no annotations to rely on, this is a significant gap. The basic action is stated, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.

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?

Description is concise with one-line summary and parameter list. No unnecessary content, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating description and args). Efficient overall.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple linking operation. However, it omits return value explanation, error cases, and edge conditions. Minimal but functional.

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 0%, so description compensates well. It explains that 'issue_id' and 'target_id' can be IDs or URLs, 'link_type' is the relation type with default 'Relates', and 'instance' is optional. This adds meaningful context 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?

Description clearly states 'Link two issues together' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_issue_link' or 'get_issue_links'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'remove_issue_link' for unlinking or 'get_issue_links' for viewing. No context on prerequisites or scope.

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