create_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds useful behavioral context about authorization. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the return value might be, which are gaps 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 is a single, efficient sentence that states the action and a key requirement without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimal but covers the basic action and a permission requirement. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or what the tool returns, making it adequate but incomplete for informed use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'short_description' as 'Epic title'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or adding value.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new epic'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other creation tools like create_story, create_task, or create_incident among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives some usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_story or create_task, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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