redmine_create_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates that the tool creates a version (mutation) and mentions 'Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY,' which hints at a read-only gate. However, it does not detail authentication requirements, success/failure responses, or other behavioral traits like rate limiting.

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 concise and well-structured with an 'Args' header and a clear bullet-like list. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the parameters well and mentions the read-only flag. The return value is not explained, but the output schema handles that. It could be more complete by describing error states, but it is sufficiently informative overall.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: project id/slug, name required uniqueness, optional description, status enum, due_date format, sharing enum, and optional wiki_page_title. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title fields.

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 version on a project.' It is a specific verb-resource pair. Among siblings like redmine_get_version, redmine_update_version, redmine_delete_version, and redmine_list_versions, this tool is uniquely identified as creation, making differentiation straightforward.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; however, the context of sibling tools implies that this is for creating versions while others handle update, delete, or retrieval. No prerequisites or usage conditions are mentioned beyond honoring REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY, which is a behavioral flag.

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