redmineflux_core_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Create a new issue.' and lists arguments but does not mention that this is a write operation, that it may be irreversible, or that it requires specific permissions. It only adds minor behavioral hints like '0 = project default' for some fields, but lacks substantive disclosure about side effects, authentication, or error handling.

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 well-structured docstring with a brief one-line summary followed by an 'Args:' block. Each parameter is listed on its own line with a clear label and explanation. There is no redundant or filler content; every line contributes to understanding the tool's invocation.

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 9 parameters, the description covers all of them with semantic explanations. The output schema is present, so the lack of return documentation is acceptable. The description, combined with the schema (which marks project_id and subject as required and provides defaults), gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. It is complete for a creation 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any of the 9 parameters (schema description coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and default behavior, e.g., 'project_id: Project identifier or numeric ID', 'subject: Issue title', 'tracker_id: Tracker ID (0 = project default)', and 'description: Issue body text (supports Textile/Markdown)'. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 begins with 'Create a new issue.' which uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('issue'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue and list_issues. The purpose is unmistakably about creating a new issue.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for new issues rather than updates, nor does it reference sibling tools like update_issue. There is no advice on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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