Create Coordination Issue

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

The description adds non-obvious behavior: HTTP 201 return with new id, non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false, so the description complements rather than contradicts.

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?

At four sentences, the description is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The API path and endpoint are useful references without being verbose.

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?

The description covers return status, errors, and required parameters, but omits details about the structure of the coordination_issue object. Since there is no output schema, the lack of field-level description for the open object leaves a gap for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage. The description simply restates the required parameters without adding meaning about the content of coordination_issue, which is an open object (additionalProperties:{}) and lacks field guidance.

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 clearly 'Create a Coordination Issue in a Project' and 'Creates the coordination issue and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_coordination_issues or update_coordination_issue by specifying creation. The mention of the endpoint further clarifies scope.

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 implies usage by stating 'Create a Coordination Issue', but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as create_and_update_bulk_coordination_issues or update_coordination_issue. It notes that calling again creates another record, which guides against idempotent misuse, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use.

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