create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., issue added to project, default status assignment, notifications), required permissions (create rights), or rate limits. The minimal description does not inform the agent what happens beyond 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly minimal and could be improved by adding brief behavioral or usage context without losing conciseness. A slightly more informative version would earn a higher score.

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 8 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide guidance on return values, effects, or typical use. It is incomplete; the agent does not know what the response looks like or how to interpret the result of creation.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the parameter semantics are well-documented structurally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates 'inside a project' which aligns with projectId. A score of 3 is appropriate per the baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 action (create) and resource (issue) within a project, effectively distinguishing it from update/delete operations. It is explicit enough for general use but lacks specificity about the nature of issues compared to siblings like create_project.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_issue or list_issues. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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