gitea_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that labels, assignees, and milestone are optional, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency characteristics, authentication requirements, or what happens if the repository does not exist.

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 sentence, which is efficient, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value. The sentence structure is front-loaded with the action, which is appropriate.

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 10 parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to describe the return value (created issue object?), required permissions, or error scenarios (e.g., duplicate titles).

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%, requiring the description to compensate for all 10 parameters. It only loosely references three parameters (labels, assignees, milestone) and completely omits critical semantics for 'site' (URL format?), 'assignee' vs 'assignees' (singular vs plural logic?), and 'closed' (creates already-closed issues?).

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 tool creates a new issue in a Gitea repository and mentions key optional fields (labels, assignees, milestone). The verb 'Create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitea_update_issue and gitea_close_issue, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitea_update_issue (for existing issues) or when issue creation prerequisites are required. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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