Create Issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new issue in a project' without detailing permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what response to expect, or other side effects. The create operation is implied, but important contextual behavior is missing.

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 (7 words), front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is minimal but combined with a fully self-documenting schema (100% parameter coverage), it provides adequate context for a straightforward create operation. However, with no output schema and no behavioral details (e.g., return value, permissions), the description is not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to explain them. The phrase 'new issue in a project' adds minimal context about projectId being required, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new issue in a project' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue in a project'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like gitlab_get_issues, gitlab_edit_issue, and gitlab_create_merge_request. It unambiguously states the tool's core function.

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 implies usage when creating an issue but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or when-not-to-use guidance, so the context is clear but only implied.

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