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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: name uniqueness within a project (case-insensitive), the permission requirement, and the response shape ('as list_versions gives it'). It omits nothing critical for a create 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is padded with tangential parenthetical JQL examples ('fixVersion = "2.4.0"', 'fixVersion in unreleasedVersions()') that don't help invoke the tool. Useful context is diluted by verbose asides.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, uniqueness constraints, and the return shape by reference. It is complete enough to call 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 the schema already documents all five parameters (name, projectKey, dates, description). The description adds the name-uniqueness constraint but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a version to a project') and places it in the sequence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings release_version and list_versions, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Names the alternative for a related action ('Releasing it is release_version's') and states the prerequisite 'Project lead or admin only'. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but does not spell out when-not to use it.

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