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 states 'Create a task' and a dispatch scenario, without explaining side effects, prerequisites, default behaviors, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap 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 description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place without fluff, though it could be improved with structured details about parameters for clarity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to indicate required vs optional fields, default values, expected return values, or any constraints, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is only 20%, and the description adds clarity only for assignee_type and assignee_id by explaining that combining them with 'agent' dispatches to an agent. Other parameters like status, priority, project_id, description, and parent_issue_id are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 clearly states 'Create a task' with a specific verb and resource. The second sentence about dispatching to an agent adds a particular use case but doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like assign_issue_to_agent. The name 'create_issue' itself is clear, so purpose is mostly unambiguous.

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 provides one specific usage scenario: dispatch to an agent by setting assignee_type='agent' and assignee_id. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_issue_to_agent, nor does it explain general issue creation use cases or exclusions.

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