zerodb_github_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions OAuth-based authentication but does not disclose side effects (e.g., the irreversibility of creating a remote issue), success/failure behavior, rate limits, or specific permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant or filler words. It is front-loaded with the action, but is somewhat under-specified, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a well-documented schema, but the description lacks important behavioral context (e.g., return values, error cases, or whether the OAuth connection must be pre-configured). It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to discover.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 4 parameters (repo, title, body, labels), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage (100%).

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 the action 'Create a GitHub issue' and the resource (a GitHub issue), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target different domains (memory, planning, Slack, Gmail, etc.) and there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond mentioning the stored OAuth connection, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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