create_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior fully. It only mentions the API endpoint and a formatting restriction. It doesn't disclose required permissions, error conditions, side effects, or what happens with optional fields. This is insufficient for a creation 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?

Description is very concise (one sentence plus warning), but lacks structure. Could be more informative without adding length. Being underinformative is not ideal conciseness.

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 tool has 5 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description fails to explain how parameters relate (e.g., parent is optional for sub-tasks), valid values for issuetype, or response behavior. Many gaps remain.

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 covers 60% of parameter descriptions (e.g., project key, issue type name). The description adds only a markdown restriction, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work; description adds no extra 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a Jira ticket, specifying the API endpoint. This differentiates from sibling tools like edit_ticket and delete_ticket by the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other creation tools like add_attachment_from_confluence.

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?

Only usage guidance is 'Do not use markdown in any field.' No information on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites, or context. The description lacks any decision-making guidance.

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