Create GitHub issue

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency (idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it embeds an AI prompt in the issue body, providing specific detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 a create operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers input source, optional overrides, and content augmentation (AI prompt). However, it does not mention the return value or confirmation, which is a minor gap.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that repo and assignees have defaults (project configured) and that the annotation_id is used to generate an AI prompt that is embedded in the issue body. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 action (create a GitHub issue) and the source (from an annotation). It differentiates from siblings like list_project_issues (list) and add_comment (comment) by specifying the input and output behavior.

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 explains default behavior (uses configured repo/assignee) and overrides, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_project_issues or add_comment, leaving some room for interpretation.

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