create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether creating an issue requires an existing project, what side effects occur, what the response contains, or any permissions needed. For a mutating operation, this is a severe transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name, and it omits critical context.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the significance of project_id and title, the severity enum, or what the outcome of a successful creation is, leaving an agent unable to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only says 'create a new issue' without elaborating on required fields.

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 'Create a new issue' is a tautological restatement of the tool name 'create_issue'. It provides no additional scope or context that would distinguish it from sibling tools such as update_issue or list_issues beyond the verb already present in the name.

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 given regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites like an existing project, relationship to other issue-related tools, or any exclusions.

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