github.issues.create

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

The description explicitly discloses that the action is not immediate and requires admin approval, which is critical behavioral information beyond the schema. No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility and delivers well.

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 with zero waste: the first states the core action, the second adds essential behavioral context. Information density is high and front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the key behavioral aspect of pending approval, it omits return value information (no output schema) and any mention of permissions or error conditions. For a create tool with six parameters, additional context would be helpful but not severely lacking.

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 100%, so the input schema itself fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a GitHub issue') and distinguishes the tool by noting it creates a pending action requiring admin approval, which differentiates it from typical issue creation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are all admin or comment/pr operations, so no direct alternatives exist, but the description still fails to contextualize its usage or prerequisites.

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