seerr_create_issue

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' is largely redundant. It adds no additional behavioral context such as whether authentication is required, what changes are made to the Seerr instance, or whether the operation is reversible. No new information beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, the second clause 'this modifies your Seerr instance' adds limited value over the annotation and could have been replaced with more useful information. Still, it's efficient in length.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are presumably covered there), the input side is severely under-specified. The free-form 'body' object with no structure or documentation makes the tool difficult to use correctly. The description provides no context about issue attributes, required fields, or examples, so the overall tool definition is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has a single 'body' object parameter with no description, additionalProperties=true, and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining what should go in the body, such as media ID or issue type. With no parameter documentation of any kind, the agent has no guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 states 'Create new issue' which clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (issue). The 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' adds side-effect framing and helps differentiate from read/list issue tools. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes an issue in the Seerr context, so slightly less helpful than ideal.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to create an issue versus using related tools like seerr_list_issue or seerr_set_issue_status, nor are any prerequisites or alternative approaches mentioned. The usage context is entirely absent.

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