Create issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not go beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the simple action it states, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no information about how to identify the project, what fields are available, or what the tool returns. For a complex creation tool, this level of under-specification is unacceptable.

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 schema description coverage at only 40%, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters like title, project_id, or labels. Instead, it mentions none of them and simply repeats the action. The required 'title' parameter and the project_id fallback are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 'Creates an issue in a project' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (issue in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_update_issue and gitlab_delete_issue by the explicit 'creates' verb. However, it is a minimal restatement of the title with only slightly more context, so it lacks depth such as what an issue entails.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention required context like project_id or fallback behavior. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so an agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools like gitlab_create_merge_request or gitlab_create_note.

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