create_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core creating action and notes Markdown support, but does not disclose side effects beyond creation, required permissions, validation behavior, return value, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence provides useful formatting detail for the description parameter, though it partially duplicates the schema field description. It is appropriately compact with no major wasted 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?

For a simple creation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core operation and a useful formatting detail. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out useful context such as what the tool returns (e.g., created issue key), any required permissions, and explicit guidance for distinguishing this from update_task. The definition is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; the Markdown note is already present in the schema's description field. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have added value by clarifying parameter relationships or expected formats.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new Jira issue') that clearly identifies the operation and resource. The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task or search_tasks. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core purpose.

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 operation 'Create a new Jira issue' implies that this tool should be used when a new issue is needed, rather than when updating or querying existing issues. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use, mention alternatives, or provide routing guidance such as 'use update_task for existing issues.' The guidance is only implied.

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