Create GitLab issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond the action. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or effects on existing data, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal addition is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core action and optional parameters without redundancy. Every word is purposeful.

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 10 parameters and only 10% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate but only covers about half the optional fields and gives no guidance on parameter semantics like IDs vs names. The presence of an output schema helps but does not mitigate the incomplete parameter guidance.

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 only 10% (only project has a description). The description lists optional fields like 'assignees, labels, milestone, due date, confidentiality' but does not clarify that assignees and milestones are referenced by ID (assignee_ids, milestone_id), and it omits 'weight' and 'issue_type'. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 (GitLab issue) with enough specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue, get_issue, and list_issues by indicating 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 context implies this tool is for creating new issues, which is distinct from update_issue or list_issues, but it does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid it. The description effectively communicates the primary use case without listing alternatives.

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