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

With empty annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral facts: the issue is attributed to Emdly as its source, and no code is modified. It says nothing about required repository permissions, rate limits, or whether a pre-existing connected repo is mandatory, which is a gap for a write tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target, and the most important constraint ('nothing in the code changes') is placed last for emphasis. The parallel 'a finding, a proposal or a to-do' is slightly decorative but not wasteful.

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 simple three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target repo, attribution, and the crucial non-mutating-of-code fact. Only permission/auth context is missing, which keeps it below 5.

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 repo (owner/name), title, and Markdown body are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, length, or defaulting detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Open an issue in a GitHub repository you connected.' The examples (finding, proposal, to-do) sharpen what an issue means here. It does not name the sibling it is closest to (github_propose_change), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated issue types and by 'you connected', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The closing line 'Nothing in the code changes' faintly distinguishes it from github_propose_change, which is a real but understated routing hint.

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