create_issue_link

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

The description implies a state change but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (only openWorldHint). It does not mention idempotency, permissions, error conditions, or side effects like duplicate link handling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately clear. Could be slightly improved by adding link_type details without harming 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between projects and issue IIDs, the effect of different link types, or the overall workflow. Sibling tools exist for managing links, but no context is given.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('issue link between two issues'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_issue_links' and 'delete_issue_link'. However, it lacks mention of the available link types, which would improve clarity.

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 like listing or deleting issue links. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., issues must exist) or the effect of existing links.

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