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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'creates' an issue, but does not mention that it is a write operation, potential side effects (e.g., sending notifications), permission requirements, or return behavior. This is insufficient for safe agentic use.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it avoids unnecessary words, it may be too sparse for a complex tool with 18 parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections).

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the high parameter count, the description should provide additional context about return values, error handling, or link to documentation. It does not explain how the tool fits into the broader workflow of issue management (e.g., that it creates and returns the issue ID). The high schema coverage partially compensates, but the description remains incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so all 18 parameters are documented within the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. However, it does not summarize key parameters or clarify relationships between them.

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 action ('Creates') and the object ('a new issue in Redmine'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_issue_relation' or 'create_issue_category', which could cause confusion for an AI agent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_issue' or 'list_issues'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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