create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: labels must be numeric IDs (not names), assignees are usernames, and the created issue is returned with its number. It does not mention side effects like notifications but covers core behavior well.

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 highly concise with four sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds specific, valuable information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers required fields, labels handling, assignees, and return value. It omits some details about other parameters but those are in the schema. The mention of the returned number is helpful, though more structure could be provided.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the label ID workflow and confirming that assignees are usernames. It also reinforces that title is required, going beyond mere parameter descriptions.

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 'Create an issue' and provides specific details about required fields, labels handling, and assignees. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_issue_labels and update_issue by explaining how labels can be managed either at creation or after.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (to create a new issue) and provides explicit guidance for label handling (calling list_labels first or using add_issue_labels after). It does not explicitly exclude using other tools, but the context of creation is clear.

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