redmine_issue_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'create an issue', implying mutation, but doesn't state what happens on success (e.g., returns created issue ID), whether the operation is idempotent (likely not), or any permissions required. The endpoint mention gives a technical hint but lacks behavioral detail.

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 description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose, and the technical note about the JSON shape is useful. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has one nested object parameter with 100% schema coverage, but no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain the required structure of the 'issue' object beyond a vague example. For a creation operation, the lack of behavioral detail (e.g., what happens on success, required fields) makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description references the Redmine issue JSON shape, which adds some meaning. However, the description doesn't elaborate on required fields or provide examples beyond what the schema description already gives (e.g., project_id, tracker_id, subject). It adds minimal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action (create an issue) and the resource (issue), and mentions the HTTP endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update or delete. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create variants for other resources (e.g., project_create), but the resource is clear enough.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as redmine_issue_update for modifications or redmine_issue_add_comment for adding comments. No prerequisites or context (e.g., required project/tracker IDs) are mentioned, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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