Create sub-task

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description does contribute real behavioral context — the sub-task issue type is auto-detected, so the caller need not resolve it — but says nothing about required screen-field availability, permission needs, or what is returned on success.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the parent constraint comes first. It is efficient but also lean to a fault, given the 11-parameter surface it is fronting.

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 with a nested customFields object and no output schema, the description covers the parent-key rule and auto issue-type detection but omits the practical Jira caveat that fields must exist on the sub-task create screen (discoverable via jira_get_create_fields) and gives no success/failure behavior. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 55%, with the discriminating parameters (site, parentKey, assignee, description, dueDate, customFields) already well documented in-schema. The description adds only the implicit 'no issueType parameter needed' insight; it says nothing about labels, priority, components, storyPoints, or how customFields keys behave on sub-tasks.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Creates a sub-task') plus an explicit constraint on the parent ('under a standard issue (Feature, Story, Task, Bug)'), which separates it from jira_create_issue and jira_create_child_issue. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer from the parent-type clause.

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 implied by the parent-type restriction — the agent can deduce 'standard issue, not Epic' — but the description never states when to prefer this over jira_create_issue, jira_create_child_issue, or jira_create_epic_with_children, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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