Create Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, duplicate-name behavior, or whether the version is immediately visible to all users.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves the previously noted gaps unaddressed.

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 five params, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the mechanical contract is complete. Missing are the operational facts an agent needs — required permissions, duplicate-name failure mode, and distinction from the batch variant.

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%, with date formats and project key patterns documented inline, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning beyond those fields, making baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new fix version in a Jira project'), which is far better than restating the title. It does not, however, differentiate from the closely named sibling jira_batch_create_versions or note its relationship to jira_create_sprint/jira_update_version.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus jira_batch_create_versions, and no prerequisites such as the project-admin permission typically required to create versions. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from tool names.

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