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, but it only says 'Create an issue.' It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, what the API return value is, or any side effects beyond the obvious creation.

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, minimal sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Create.' It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it is too sparse to be considered excellent.

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?

Despite having a structured output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the description lacks broader context. It does not explain the operation's workflow, any required preconditions, or how it fits among sibling tools, making it insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (repo, title, body, labels, assignees) already explained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an issue' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue), which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue and create_pull_request, though it lacks extra scope or detail that would make it exceptional.

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 when to prefer create_issue over update_issue or create_pull_request, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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