create_or_update_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. It does disclose real behavioral traits beyond the schema: auto-assignment of the user and auto-setting of dates. However, it omits important behavior such as how ambiguous partial matches are resolved, whether unmentioned fields are overwritten on update, and any permission requirements for a tool that can mutate existing records.

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?

Four short sentences with the find/update/create logic front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'auto-assigns user, auto-sets dates, and can log time' is slightly compressed but still earns its place.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core upsert flow and key side effects. It leaves notable gaps on match ambiguity, overwrite semantics, and return behavior that an agent would need before calling it safely.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by noting auto-assignment when assigned_to_id is absent and automatic date handling, but it doesn't clarify ambiguous inputs like partial-match subjects. Baseline 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 states a specific compound verb (find/update/create) on a specific resource (issue), and the upsert semantics inherently distinguish it from the sibling create_issue and update_issue tools. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains the internal logic (exists → update, not exists → create) but gives no guidance on when an agent should pick this over create_issue, update_issue, or search_issues. Usage is implied by the upsert flow rather than stated as a selection rule.

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