jira_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 that an issue is created, which essentially restates the tool name, and does not mention side effects, permissions, validation behavior, or what happens after creation.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has eight parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the agent should expect as a result, such as the created issue key or ID. The schema covers parameters well, but for a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description could provide more operational context.

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 input schema already documents all eight parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond naming the project, but the schema fully compensates for parameter-level details, so the minimum viable score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('a new Jira issue'), and the scope ('specified project'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_update_issue and jira_transition_issue because it explicitly targets creation of a new issue.

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 intended use is implied by the creation semantics, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue. An agent can infer the right choice from the tool name and siblings, but the guidance is not made explicit.

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