create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create an issue' and mentions the project_id requirement. It doesn't disclose that issue_data contains many server-managed fields (created_at, created_by, updated_at, etc.) that likely shouldn't be set by the client, nor does it mention any side effects, validation, or response behavior. The nested issue_data schema has a rich description for estimate_hours but the tool description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then a practical tip. It is concise and readable, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit about the parameter name.

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 a large nested issue_data object and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what issue_data should contain, which fields are required (name, description_html are required in the schema but not mentioned), or what the response will be. The get_projects tip is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing guidance on the main payload.

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 50%: project_id has a description, and issue_data has a description for estimate_hours, but the rest of the nested properties are undocumented. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain project_id via get_projects, but it doesn't clarify the semantics of issue_data as a whole or which fields are client-settable vs server-managed. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 verb and resource ('Create an issue') and identifies the required project_id parameter. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_issue, but the verb 'create' plus the schema makes the primary purpose clear.

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 a concrete usage hint: if you have a readable project identifier, use get_projects to resolve it to a project_id. This is useful routing guidance, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool or mention alternatives for creating other resources.

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