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

The description clearly describes a write operation ('File an issue'), yet the annotation readOnlyHint=true contradicts this. Additionally, idempotentHint=true is misleading for an operation that creates new issues each call. The description provides useful behavioral details (unknown labels dropped, locked to team), but the contradiction with annotations is a severe transparency failure.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every clause adds information: labels, priority, error handling for unknown labels, team lock, and usage intent. Efficient and well-structured.

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 description covers the purpose, parameters, default behavior, and usage context. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists, and for a create tool this is not critical. However, the annotation contradiction reduces trust in the overall context, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% description coverage, the description adds value by enumerating the allowed label values (Bug, Feature, etc.) and clarifying the priority default (3) and the none-to-low range. This goes beyond the schema's generic examples and provides crucial domain-specific context.

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 states a clear action ('File an issue'), specific resource ('Heista HEI board'), and explicitly lists the fields and constraints. It distinguishes itself from note-taking and from related read tools like fleet_get_issue and fleet_list_issues, so an agent can immediately recognize its purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('record a real defect or a piece of work, not to take notes') and notes it is locked to team HEI. It does not explicitly name alternative issue tools, but no such siblings exist, so the context is sufficient.

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