create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create'. It does not mention that this is a persistent write operation, that repository write permissions are required, whether duplicates are possible, or what the response will be. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 focused sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler. All parameter details are delegated to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 schema provides complete parameter semantics, so an agent can construct the required owner/repo/title call correctly. However, with no annotations, the description leaves out return value expectations, authentication/write-permission prerequisites, and duplicate/error behavior, so it is only minimally complete for a create operation.

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 describes all 7 parameters with examples (e.g. owner as namespace, repo as project path) and covers 100% of the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not elevate above the schema baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Create'), resource ('a new issue'), and context ('GitLab repository'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_issue, list_issues, get_issue, and create_merge_request.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_issue or add_issue_comment, nor any mention of prerequisites. The only contextual signal is the creation verb, which leaves usage decisions to inference.

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