Create an issue

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

Annotations already convey the mutation/destructiveness profile, and the description adds the useful Tapir add-on requirement. It also discloses that the operation returns an id; however, it does not explain any side effects beyond creation, which is acceptable because destructiveHint is already present.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, scope, return behavior, and a dependency without repetition or filler. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

Although the output schema likely covers the returned id and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation: the port parameter is undocumented and there is no guidance for choosing this tool over related issue-creation or issue-comment tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. The name parameter is weakly inferable as the issue's name, but the optional port parameter is completely unexplained, leaving its role and accepted values ambiguous.

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 states a specific action and resource: create a new issue in the open project, and it names the immediate result (return its id). This is distinct from siblings like add_issue_comment or create_issues_from_failures, which have clearly different scopes.

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 primary usage is implied: use this tool when a new issue should be created in the open project. The mention of the Tapir add-on acts as a prerequsite, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as create_issues_from_failures or import_issues_bcf.

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