create_jira_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses creation and linking behavior, but does not mention side effects (e.g., failed linking, permissions required, or whether it modifies existing tickets). The 'link them together' statement is vague about bidirectional linkage.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the core purpose with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., using 'get_jira_boards' and 'get_issue_types' first). The schema hints at these, but the description adds little context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the linking behavior is already implied by the 'sentry_issue_url' and 'sentry_issue_id' parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Jira ticket from a Sentry issue'), and clearly states the linking behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_stack_trace' and 'get_issue_types' by focusing on ticket creation with a Sentry connection.

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 the tool is for creating Jira tickets linked to Sentry issues, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'create_jira_from_sentry'). It lacks exclusion criteria or best-use context.

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