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 states that it creates an issue, implying a mutation, but it does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the issue (e.g., default status, sequence numbers). It also does not clarify whether the operation is reversible or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a creation action.

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, concise sentence: 'Create a new Jira issue in a project.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no fluff. While it is short, it is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys; it does not waste words, though one might argue it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention which parameters are required, how to specify issue type or description, or any constraints like project key existence. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and infer usage. The lack of usage guidelines makes the tool harder to invoke correctly, especially when compared to sibling tools.

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 100% because every parameter (summary, issueType, projectKey, description) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional insight beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, with full coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the resource 'a new Jira issue in a project.' This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_issues, get_issue, and update_issue, which have different verbs. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project key) or conditions under which creation is appropriate, nor does it reference any sibling tools. An agent must infer when to create an issue based solely on the verb, which is insufficient given the rich set of sibling tools.

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