redmine_version_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions a POST request and the creation action, but fails to note side effects, authentication requirements, success/failure responses, or any irreversible consequences. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, though it sacrifices critical detail. It earns a 4 for minimalism and clarity, not for completeness.

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?

Given the complexity of a create operation with a nested version object and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what fields the version object should contain, whether the response includes the created version, or any error handling nuances. An agent would need to consult external documentation to call this tool correctly.

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 50%—only project_id has a description ('project id or identifier'). The version parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties allowed, and the description text adds nothing about its expected structure or required fields. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing the version object.

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) and the resource (version), and includes the REST endpoint for precision. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_version_get, redmine_version_update, and redmine_version_delete, which have distinct verbs and purposes.

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 implies usage for creating a new version but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update for modifications, list for retrieval). There are no stated exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario from the tool name alone.

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