create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose real side effects: auto-assignment to the detected local user and automatic start/due date population keyed to status. However, much of this is duplicated from the schema's parameter descriptions, and it omits permission requirements, failure modes, and what the call returns (issue ID) for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two automatic behaviors. No filler, though the auto-behavior sentence could be folded into the schema-covered content it repeats.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the notable automatic behaviors but leaves gaps: it never says project_id is effectively required (the schema's required array lists only subject), does not describe the response, and does not clarify its boundary with create_or_update_issue.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the auto-assign default and date formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a new issue in Redmine"), which clearly separates it from read/mutation siblings like get_issue or update_issue. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling create_or_update_issue, leaving that ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the auto-behavior notes; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer create_or_update_issue, and no stated prerequisites (project must exist, tracker/status IDs must be valid).

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