Create epic with child issues

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

Annotations already cover safety (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that it 'fails fast on the first error' and 'reports what was created,' which tells the agent this is a non-atomic batch that may leave partial state and returns a creation manifest. The main omission is whether partial creations are rolled back or persist after failure.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the create action and hierarchy, then the failure semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

This tool has no documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description fully carries the burden. It states a specific verb and resource, describes the three-level hierarchy, and names the safety profile it inherits. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 50% (only projectKey and site are described), and both the 'epic' and 'children' parameters are undocumented nested objects. The description loosely maps the schema shape by naming epic, child issues with types (features/stories/tasks), and optional sub-tasks, but adds no ordering, cardinality, or field-level detail beyond what the schema shows. Baseline 3 for a half-documented schema with a small clarification.

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 plus child issues, with optional sub-tasks) and captures the full three-level hierarchy in one sentence. It implicitly separates itself from the granular path with 'in one call,' but never names jira_create_epic / jira_create_child_issue / jira_create_subtask, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'in one call' hints that this is the batch alternative to repeated single-issue calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling create tools, and no guidance on batch size limits or when to prefer the granular tools instead.

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