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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that the workflow state defaults to the team's first unstarted state and that the tool returns the new issue with an identifier like 'ENG-42'. Annotations only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, leaving these specific behaviors undisclosed; the description fills that gap.

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 filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral nuance (state default) and the return value. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Given the 13 optional/required parameters, the schema itself is comprehensive, so the description does not need to repeat them. It covers the key non-obvious behaviors: default state and return identifier. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing this over related issue tools, but the tool can still be invoked correctly with the information provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the semantics of the optional 'state' parameter by specifying the default behavior when it is omitted: the team's first unstarted state. It also explains the output identifier, which helps the agent understand what to expect. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an issue on a team.' It clearly identifies the action (create) and the target (an issue), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_doc, create_project, or update_issue. The added scope 'on a team' further clarifies the primary input.

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 implies usage: you create a new issue when you need a new issue on a team. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives like update_issue for existing issues or archive_issue for closing them. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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