create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context (returns key/URL, common issue types, project-dependency) but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage context, return value, and common types. No redundant information or fluff.

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 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and return value. The schema handles parameter details. It lacks discussion of error scenarios or prerequisites, but is largely complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, but it does mention common issue types and return behavior that indirectly reflect parameters. No major gaps.

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 the verb ('Create'), resource ('Jira issue'), and scope ('security incidents, vulnerabilities, or remediation tasks'), and it specifies the return value (issue key and URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_issue or search_issues.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use to file security incidents, vulnerabilities, or remediation tasks') and notes that issue types depend on project configuration. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other actions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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