issues_from_document

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false with no readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the burden — and it does disclose the source-extraction fallback (checklist items, else sections) and the side effect of linking the document. It says nothing about what the dry run returns, permissions needed, or what happens on re-runs beyond the schema's skipDuplicates flag.

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?

Two compact clauses that front-load the core transformation, then the side effect, then the safety instruction — no filler. The arrow shorthand and parenthetical fallback are terse to the point of requiring a second read, which costs it a point.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-empty annotations, the definition covers the core behavior but leaves the label/milestone tagging parameters and the shape of the dry-run result unexplained. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently configure it.

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 44%, below the threshold where the schema alone suffices, and the description only illuminates two of nine parameters (the document source and the dry-run default, the latter already in the schema). componentLabel, milestoneLabel, skipDuplicates, workspace, epicIdentifier, and projectIdentifier get no explanatory treatment anywhere.

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 names a concrete transformation — a document's open checklist items (or its sections) become one epic plus sub-issues, and the doc gets linked. That is a specific verb+resource, and the phrase 'from a document' implicitly separates it from the meeting-based sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to avoid.

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?

'Dry run first' is a real operational instruction that tells the agent to preview before committing. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over create_issue_tree, issues_from_meeting, or plain create_issue, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required project/workspace/document.

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