Create an issue

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the scope requirement, that unknown labels are silently skipped and reported, that the issue is attributed to the token owner, and the exact return shape. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about side effects and output without contradicting any annotation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a concise parameter list, a return summary, and a helpful attribution note. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content. The most critical context (write operation and scope) is 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, which is essential. It also covers scope requirements, label handling, and token attribution. The only omission is how response_format affects the output, but that's documented in the schema, so the context is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of labels (unknown names are skipped and reported) and by reminding that owner/repo may be optional when default are configured, which supplements the schema's default descriptions.

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 opens with a concrete action, 'Opens a new issue,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. The title and sibling context (forgejo_get_issue, forgejo_update_issue, forgejo_comment_issue) make the creation purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from related 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?

It states clearly that this is a write operation requiring the 'write:issue' scope, which helps the agent determine whether it is the right tool given permissions. It also notes that the issue is attributed to the token owner and suggests checking forgejo_whoami if uncertain, giving practical context on when to use supporting tools. It doesn't mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the creation role is clear enough.

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