Create A Coordination Issue (REST V2.0)

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world. The description adds value by disclosing that the request body must be flat JSON, that observers may enqueue notifications/side effects, and that some fields are accepted-only (requiring PATCH). These details go beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively concise at a few sentences, covering key points: service, request format, side effects, usage, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor density could be improved, but overall well-structured for the information provided.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and available annotations, the description addresses essential aspects: required params, request format, side effects, and endpoint. It omits error handling and return field details, but those are partially offset by the open world annotation and the mention of HTTP 201. The coverage is good for a create tool with comprehensive schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description significantly enhances parameter understanding by specifying that company_id and project_id are required despite the schema marking only title as required. It also clarifies that certain fields (description, due_date, etc.) are accepted-only and must be set via PATCH, which is critical for correct usage.

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 tool creates a coordination issue and returns the created object with HTTP 201. The title includes 'REST V2.0' to distinguish from other versions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_coordination_issue' (likely v1.0) or bulk create, slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides a general instruction to 'use this to create a new Coordination Issues' but offers no guidance on when to avoid this tool, such as when to use bulk create or other variants. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision context.

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