Create issue under an epic

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing that the project is inherited from the parent and that valid issuetypes are project-dependent. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens if the parent is not an Epic, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constrained scope, then the conditional hint. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 a 12-parameter mutation tool with a nested customFields object and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: it never mentions that required fields vary per project or points at jira_get_create_fields, and it does not say what is returned (presumably the new issue key). Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 58%, and the description only adds semantics for issueType and parentKey, both of which the schema already documents reasonably. Labels, priority, components, storyPoints and summary carry no explanation in either place, so the description does not compensate for the documented-parameter gap.

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 names a specific verb (creates), an enumerated set of issuetypes (Feature, Story, Task, Bug) and a fixed placement (under a parent Epic keyed by parentKey). The statement that 'the project is taken from the parent' implicitly separates it from jira_create_issue and jira_create_subtask, though neither sibling is named.

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?

It gives a concrete conditional rule ('Use issueType="Feature" where the project has that type') plus a fallback path ('call jira_get_issue_types if unsure'), which is exactly the kind of routing hint an agent needs. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'for a subtask of a Story use jira_create_subtask instead'), so it does not reach a 5.

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