jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions error conditions (read-only, client unavailable) but does not disclose side effects like workflow triggers, validation requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. The Raises section adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections but repeats parameter descriptions already present in the schema. It could be more concise by reducing duplication, though it remains clear and organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for a creation tool: it covers all parameters, usage nuances (e.g., 'always ask the user' for project key), and error conditions. It does not need to explain return values.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema: clarifies assignee format, warns not to assume project_key, provides detailed examples for additional_fields (priority, labels, parent), and explains subtask requirements. This goes well above baseline.

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 clearly states 'Create a new Jira issue' with specific mention of optional Epic link or parent for subtasks, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like batch_create_issues or create_issue_link by focusing on single issue creation with linking capabilities.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_batch_create_issues, jira_create_issue_link, or jira_update_issue. It does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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