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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the mutating nature, the return value, the defaulting behavior, and a mandatory user-confirmation step. While error behavior and permission requirements are not covered, the essential behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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?

Four short sentences with the action first, followed by return value, mutating warning, and routing exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description closes the main gaps: it states what the tool returns and recommends a pre-call check using jira_get_issue. The combination of schema and description gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only re-states the issueType default that also appears in the schema and adds no additional parameter-level detail. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action and resource: 'Create a new Jira issue.' It also names the return value (issue key and browse URL) and explicitly contrasts the tool with comment-creation and jira_get_issue, making it easy to tell apart from sibling Jira tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS confirm with the user before calling' and 'If the user mentions "PROJ-X" they want a comment, not a new issue.' It also instructs the agent to call jira_get_issue first to establish project context and documents the issueType default. This leaves nothing to inference.

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