create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the action is not executed immediately but rather queued for human approval, which is a critical behavior. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, idempotency, or how to track the queued request, leaving some gaps.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences—with the key information front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: 'Request creation' is the action, 'GitHub issue' is the resource, and 'queues exact action for human approval' explains the critical behavioral nuance.

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 and sibling tools for pending actions, the description focuses on the most important contextual detail: this tool queues for approval rather than executing directly. It does not elaborate on parameter requirements, but the schema covers required fields, and the output schema likely describes return values. The queueing behavior is the key missing piece that the description supplies.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention any parameters. The property names (owner, repo, title, body) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional context about required vs optional parameters, formats, or validation rules.

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 'Request creation' and the resource 'GitHub issue', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_issue_comment and close_issue by focusing specifically on creating a new issue. The phrase 'queues exact action for human approval' further differentiates it from any direct-creation alternative.

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 when to use the tool: when you want to create an issue but need human approval, as it queues the action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the approval context is clear from the wording and sibling tool names like list_pending_actions.

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