Create Tracker filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack, namely ownership by the calling user, but says nothing about duplicate creation, permissions required, or error behavior.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the required field, then the exclusion rule and the cleanup counterpart. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said what the created filter returns (id, stored query), but it does not. It does cover the required parameter and the mutually exclusive query/filter choice, making it adequate but not complete for a create operation.

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% and the nested body schema already documents name, query (TQL string) and filter (field→condition mapping), including the "either/or, not both" rule. The description restates these accurately but adds no format, syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 saved issue filter") and adds the ownership scope ("owned by the calling user"), which separates it from ad-hoc search tools like tracker_issues_search. It references the sibling filters_delete, but does not explicitly contrast with filters_update or clarify how a saved filter differs from a plain query tool.

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?

Gives implied usage (create a stored filter) and points to filters_delete for later removal, which is a useful lifecycle hint. However, it never states when to use this versus an ad-hoc search (tracker_issues_search) or when not to create a filter, leaving the choice largely to inference.

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