Create epic

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, openWorld). The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — automatic detection of the epic issue type — which is useful. It says nothing about required permissions, whether duplicate epics are rejected, or what happens if no epic issue type exists in the project.

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 immediately followed by the workflow hint. No filler; it is arguably under-specified rather than verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description only tells the agent what gets created and what to do next. It omits what the call returns (issue key/id?), how required fields interact with customFields, and any failure modes, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 only 55% and the description compensates for none of it: labels, summary, priority, components and storyPoints are undocumented in either place, and the description never mentions a single parameter. The auto-detection note is about issue type, not about inputs, so it does not fill the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates an Epic') and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail — the epic-level issue type is auto-detected per project. It does not, however, differentiate itself from jira_create_epic_with_children or jira_create_issue, which live in the same sibling set and overlap heavily.

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 gives a follow-up path ('use jira_create_child_issue to add features/stories under it'), which implies this is the bare-epic tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus jira_create_epic_with_children, which presumably does this plus children in one call.

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