Create Issue

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

The description merely restates the action without additional behavioral context. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no details about required permissions, side effects, or what happens on success. This is comparable to the update_drive example where mutation tools need more disclosure.

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 exactly one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. All words are useful, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 description is minimal but combined with a rich schema and output schema, it provides baseline adequacy. However, it lacks a high-level summary of prerequisites (like calling queue_get_fields) that is critical for successful use, leaving the agent to discover it in parameter descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; all semantic details are provided by the input schema, especially the 'fields' parameter's IMPORTANT note. This is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 specific action ('Create a new issue') and target resource ('Yandex Tracker queue'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_update, issue_close, and issue_move by making the creation intent explicit.

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 when a new issue needs to be created, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. The important prerequisite about calling queue_get_fields is present only in the parameter schema, not the description, so guidance is limited to implication.

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