create_issue_link

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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true, suggesting unknown side effects, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., notifications, permissions, whether links are bidirectional). The description simply states 'create', which is already implied.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and annotations are sparse. The description could mention return value (e.g., the created link object) or error conditions. For a simple create tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The link_type enum is documented in the schema; the description does not explain the semantic differences between types.

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 'Create an issue link between two issues' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue link), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_issue_link and get_issue_link.

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 (e.g., get_issue_link, list_issue_links) or prerequisites (e.g., issues must exist). The description implies a simple create operation but lacks context on relationship types.

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