create_epic

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate the operation is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, but the description doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or expected response format.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It earns its place for basic purpose but provides no additional detail.

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?

For a creation tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks information about required parameters, return values, relationships to existing entities, and any side effects. It is minimally viable at best.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 18 parameters. It only mentions 'project' obliquely, which does not help disambiguate fields like point vs estimate_point, description_html vs description_stripped, or the meaning of state and priority. The agent must guess or use external knowledge.

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 action (create), resource (epic), and scope (in a project). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_work_item or create_project by naming the specific resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), and no mention of exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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