ACC.MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Create'), requires specific permissions ('data:write' scope), and mentions a prerequisite dependency (get issueSubtypeId from another tool). It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success, but provides solid foundational context.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, immediately lists required parameters, then optional ones, and ends with the critical scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the warning symbol appropriately highlights the permission requirement.

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 creation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, parameter guidance, and permission requirements. It could be more complete by describing what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID) or error conditions, but covers the essentials well given the complexity.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description lists required vs. optional parameters and provides some additional context about issueSubtypeId sourcing, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Create a new issue'), resource ('in a project'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or update operations like aps_issues_get, aps_issues_list, or aps_issues_update.

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 clear context about required parameters (title, issueSubtypeId, status) and explicitly mentions the prerequisite to get issueSubtypeId from aps_issues_get_types. It also specifies the required scope ('data:write' in APS_SCOPE). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like aps_issues_update.

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