add_linked_item

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a link (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and importantly notes that dry_run=true by default, advising to set to false only after user confirmation. This adds value beyond the 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 extremely concise with two sentences that cover the core purpose, link types, and a crucial behavioral note. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main action and dry_run, but does not describe what the function returns (e.g., the created link object), which is a gap for completeness.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context: it explains how to obtain the target_gid (from get_issue or get_epic_widgets) and the default dry_run behavior. This enhances understanding 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 tool creates a link between two work items, specifies the link types (RELATED, BLOCKS, BLOCKED_BY), and mentions the dry_run default. This distinguishes it from potentially similar sibling tools like 'link_work_items'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. It only lists link types and dry_run behavior, which is more about functionality than usage context.

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