Create issue

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the return payload ('the new key and URL') and the Markdown-to-Jira-rich-text conversion behavior, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and hierarchy/format/return details following in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Covers the essentials for a 14-parameter create tool with 86% schema coverage: hierarchy handling, description format, and return values. Missing only permission/prerequisite notes and guidance on customFields or site selection, which the schema mostly handles.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly all 14 parameters. The description's parentKey guidance and Markdown note largely restate what the schema's own field descriptions state, adding little new semantic information; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Creates an issue of any type') and describes scope (any type, hierarchy via parentKey). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming jira_create_subtask, but does not clarify its relationship to jira_create_epic, jira_create_child_issue, or jira_create_ticket_from_context.

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?

Gives actionable routing guidance: use parentKey for stories/features/tasks under an Epic, or for sub-tasks under a standard issue, and points to jira_create_subtask when you want the sub-task type auto-picked. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool versus jira_create_epic/jira_create_child_issue.

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