create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, notification side effects, idempotency, or rate limits. 'Create' implies a mutation, but what it changes and what constraints apply are unstated.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a tight args list where each line adds format or example information. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and parameters are well covered. However, for a Jira create tool the key operational caveat — that required fields vary by project and issue type and custom field IDs must be discovered via get_createmeta — is missing, which is a meaningful gap given 14 parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the 14 parameters is documented with concrete formats and examples ('KAN', 'KAN-1', 'Task'/'Story'/'Bug'/'Epic', YYYY-MM-DD, ['v1.0.0'], wiki markup, and the dict-of-custom-field-IDs shape).

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 and resource ('Create a Jira issue') and enumerates the field coverage, which is clearly distinguishable from read/search siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from create_issues_bulk or the update/delete siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over create_issues_bulk, nor that get_createmeta should be consulted first to discover valid issue types and required custom fields. The description only lists fields, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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