Create a ticket

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

Beyond the annotations (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the created ticket's initial status, who the reporter is, the backlog default when no sprint is given, and the three permission scopes required. These are exactly the mutation-time facts an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is created and where it starts, followed by optionality and then the hard permission gate. No filler sentences.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers creation scope, defaults, and auth, which is the bulk of what's needed. It does not say what comes back (ticket key/ID) nor that repeating the call creates duplicates given the non-idempotent annotation, a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is 56%, and the description adds real semantics for two key params: omitting 'sprint' means backlog, and supplying 'assignee' triggers an extra permission requirement. It says nothing about labels, priority, description, or story_points, so several params remain schema-only.

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 and resource ('Create a ticket in a project') plus scope details an agent needs: the reporter is the token owner and the ticket starts in To Do. The optional assign/sprint clauses also separate it from assign_ticket and move_to_sprint, which do those actions after creation.

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?

Makes the branching condition explicit: assign and sprint are optional, and without the sprint the ticket lands in the backlog. Permission prerequisites for each optional path (tickets:assign, sprints:write, tickets:create) are spelled out. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, but the inline-vs-separate-tool choice is implied clearly.

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