jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: 'New issues start as Open' (initial workflow status). It omits permission requirements and any side effects, but with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first. The issue_type enumeration duplicates the schema's enum, which is slightly wasteful, but overall it is tight and readable.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it does not clarify which fields are required, what the created issue's key is, or any per-issue-type field requirements. An agent can call it, but with avoidable guesswork.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden, yet it only restates the issue_type enum values already present in the schema. It says nothing about the required project key pattern, the summary field, or the description field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a Jira issue') with no ambiguity about the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the jira_ prefix and 'create' verb make the scope reasonably clear.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as jira_search_issues or github_create_issue, and no prerequisites (auth, project existence) are mentioned. The only 'guidance' is a statement of defaults, not a when-to-use condition.

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