Create issue

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

Annotations only carry negative hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the disclosure burden — and it delivers: plain text is converted to ADF, the markdown subset behavior, 'Assignees are accountId only', and the customfield_10xxx passthrough convention are all real behavioral traits beyond what annotations state. No contradiction with annotations. It does not cover execution gating or failure behavior, though the schema's apply/plan_id parameters document the gating.

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?

Six sentences, each earning its place: purpose, resolution workflow, format/description handling, assignee constraint, custom field convention, and the sprint exclusion. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no sentence duplicates content already in the schemas.

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, 3-required write tool with nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious pitfalls: instance-specific values, project-required custom fields, ADF conversion, accountId-only assignees, and the sprint exclusion. The plan/apply gating is thoroughly documented by the apply and plan_id schema entries, so its absence from the description is not a gap.

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% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value above that baseline: a resolution workflow for valid project/issueType values via sibling tools, the customfield_10xxx id convention for the fields passthrough, and the ADF conversion semantics for description. These change how an agent should populate parameters rather than merely restating their meaning.

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?

Opens with 'Create one issue' — a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier that removes any batch ambiguity. This cleanly distinguishes it from write-siblings like jira_update_issue, jira_transition_issue, and jira_delete_issue, and from creators of other resources (jira_create_component, jira_create_version). No other sibling creates issues, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to jira_list_projects and jira_get_create_meta to resolve instance-specific project/issueType values and project-required custom fields. Closes with an explicit when-not: 'A sprint cannot be set here: create first, then jira_move_to_sprint,' naming the alternative tool and the condition. It also states the assignee identifier constraint. This is exactly the explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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