jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by explaining that 'effect' is a claimed read/write effect verified by Spring, that 'approval_ref' is used when resuming a write, and that 'idempotency_key' provides a stable business-action identity. This gives an agent meaningful insight into the approval and idempotency mechanics without contradicting the annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact argument list. There is no redundant prose. It loses a point because some argument lines are incomplete, such as 'summary (required):' with no explanation, and the overall structure mixes required-field claims that the schema does not support.

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?

For an 11-parameter write tool with approval, idempotency, and correlation-reference semantics, the description provides a reasonable starting point but leaves relationships unclear: what distinguishes project_id, project_ref, and connector_account_ref, and how approval_ref interacts with the write flow are not explained. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the inconsistent required-field information and vague 'Spring verifies it' language make the definition incomplete for confident autonomous invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides one-line semantics for nearly all 11 parameters, including 'project_key (e.g. ENG)', 'assignee: Username or accountId', and 'effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it.' However, 'summary' and 'description' have empty explanations, and the 'required' markers conflict with the schema, which lists zero required parameters and all-nullable defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Jira issue in a project.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_subtask or jira_update_issue. The first sentence alone is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_create_subtask, jira_create_automation_rule, or jira_transition_issue. The description implies usage through the tool name but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or the conditions under which a different Jira tool should be selected.

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