create_jira_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it creates a new issue, but it does not disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur beyond creation, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 consists of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediate requirements. There is no redundant wording or boilerplate, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 definition is adequate for basic invocation because the schema covers all parameters and the description names the required fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return value expectations, error conditions, and permission requirements, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only a high-level grouping of required vs. optional fields, which is already encoded in the required array and parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline but does not provide significant additional parameter meaning.

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 ('Creates') and a specific resource ('a new issue in a Jira project'), which is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like read_jira_issue, search_jira_issues, and add_jira_comment. It also clearly identifies the required top-level inputs, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies it is for creating a new issue, and the requirement to specify project, issue type, and summary gives some practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or direct the agent to alternatives, such as using search_jira_issues for existing issues or read_jira_issue for retrieval.

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