create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', implying mutation but not whether it's idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 short sentence, which is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded but under-specified, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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's complexity (7 parameters, creation action, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or successful outcome, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is only 29% (subject and project_id have descriptions), but the tool description itself provides no additional parameter context. Required fields and optional fields are not explained.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'Redmine issue', making the primary action and target unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like update_issue or add_comment. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or what constitutes a Redmine issue.

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 (e.g., when to create vs. update an issue). No prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id) are mentioned beyond the schema.

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