Create Ticket

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a mutation ('create') but does not disclose required permissions, effects on existing data, projectKey validity, or what happens on failure. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the action itself.

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?

Single sentence, 8 words, no fluff; the verb and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately short, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value structure is covered. However, the description leaves 8 parameters unexplained, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. It does not clarify the role of column, epic, or estimate fields, nor what constitutes a valid request.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. It only mentions 'project column' generically, not mapping to columnId or columnName, and does not clarify required fields like projectKey and title.

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 the verb 'Create' and resource 'ticket' in a project column, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update/delete/move. However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative or exclude other create tools (e.g., create_project, create_column), so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that it is the appropriate tool for adding a new ticket, nor any conditions or prerequisites. With 30+ siblings, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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