Create version

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces the idempotency caveat by stating that running twice creates two versions. It also discloses the permission requirement, calendar-date semantics, and plain-text storage, all beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 dense sentences, each adding a distinct operational fact: purpose, ID asymmetry, date semantics, plain-text storage, permission, and non-idempotence. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 10-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious operational facts: permission, idempotency, projectId type, and date formatting. The two-phase apply/plan behavior and per-field semantics are fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing. The only minor gap is no mention of the response shape, which is acceptable given the strong schema.

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% and every parameter has its own detailed description. The tool description largely restates what the schema already says (numeric projectId, date format, plain-text description), so it adds no new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter-documentation load.

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 explicitly that it creates a version (a release) in a project and clarifies its downstream use through fixVersions. It also distinguishes itself from jira_create_component by highlighting the projectId-vs-key asymmetry, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Names the nearest sibling alternative (jira_create_component) and gives the exact condition that selects it: numeric projectId versus key. It also names the required permission and warns that running the tool twice creates two versions, which is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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