create_issue

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), which provides some baseline. The description adds that the tool can create different issue types and optionally set hierarchy and labels, giving more specific behavioral context than annotations alone. However, it does not disclose return values, permissions, or side effects beyond the obvious creation.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses every word to convey meaning. It is concise, non-redundant, and avoids filler content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema that covers return values, the tool is complex with 14 parameters and low schema coverage. The minimal description fails to convey important parameter semantics, usage nuances, or typical scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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?

With only 21% schema description coverage, the burden falls on the description to explain parameters. It clarifies that 'epic, task, or bug' corresponds to the 'type' parameter, and 'hierarchy'/'labels' hint at parent_issue_id and label-related parameters. The remaining 11 parameters (e.g., view, status, priority, description, blocked_reason, idempotency_key) are not covered, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('one epic, task, or bug'), and scopes it with optional hierarchy and labels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue, get_issue, and apply_issue_plan, which all have different actions or scopes.

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 single issue of a specified type, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue for modifications or apply_issue_plan for applying plans. No exclusions or prerequises are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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