create_issue_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that this is a mutating 'create' operation, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, default link behavior, or what is returned, which are meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 filler. It communicates the verb, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 schema covers parameter semantics well, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, required-field expectations, or cross-project linking behavior. The definition is adequate for a simple create operation but leaves some operational details for the agent to infer.

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 schema already documents all five parameters clearly, including the link_type enum and the meaning of project IDs and issue IIDs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action and object: 'Create an issue link between two issues'. The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issue_links, get_issue_link, and delete_issue_link, though it does not mention link types or cross-project behavior explicitly.

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 given about when to use this tool versus listing, getting, or deleting issue links, nor are prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring the issues to exist or what happens with duplicate links. The intended use is only implied by the word 'Create'.

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