create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the action (create) and includes useful behavioral details such as 'anything not provided is left to the project's defaults.' It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but the core behavior and default-handling behavior are disclosed.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by a clear bulleted args list. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the format is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 high complexity (14 parameters) and absence of annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, optional behavior, defaults, and points to sibling tools for enumeration needs. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail, including types, examples, and how to discover valid values (e.g., 'tracker_id: tracker ID (varies per instance; use list_trackers)'). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'Create a new issue in Redmine,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue, delete_issue, and list_issues by focusing solely on creation.

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 clear context by stating that this tool creates a new issue and that every field besides project and subject is optional. It also directs users to helper tools (list_trackers, list_statuses_and_priorities, etc.) for valid IDs, which gives practical usage guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_issue.

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