createJiraIssue

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on required auth scopes, that retries will duplicate issues, or that nested custom fields are passed through opaquely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful context.

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?

This is a mutation tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, so the description carries real burden. It omits prerequisites, the fields/update override mechanics, and what a successful create returns (e.g. the new issue key), leaving the agent to infer all of 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 description coverage is 71% (below the 80% baseline), so the description must compensate for the gaps, and it doesn't. Notably the 'update' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, and the relationship between issueTypeId and issueTypeName is only implied by the schema text.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a new Jira work item'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like editJiraIssue or createJiraIssueLink, and the vaguer term 'work item' rather than 'issue' is a small miss.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (project must exist, issue type must be valid, required permissions), and no mention of the alternative approach via issueTypeId vs issueTypeName. The agent gets no routing help.

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