Create Tracker priority

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but adding 'no delete endpoint' and 'creation leaves permanent residue' discloses an irreversibility risk the annotations do not convey — a genuinely valuable addition for a write tool. It also clarifies the key/name split beyond the schema text.

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?

Two short sentences with the caution front-loaded and the parameter gloss following. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (permanent, no delete) is placed before the field notes.

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 nested-body create tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, and the required field semantics. It could mention the auth/permission requirement for org-wide settings, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning: 'key is the latin identifier' and 'name holds the ru/en display names', which orients the agent on the required nested body fields. The optional 'order' and 'description' fields are left to the schema.

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 ('Create') and resource ('org-global issue priority'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/mutate tools tracker_priorities_list and tracker_priorities_update. The scope qualifier 'org-global' tells the agent this is not scoped to a project or queue.

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 CAUTION block gives clear context for when to hesitate: org-wide scope plus no delete endpoint, so creation is effectively permanent. It stops short of naming an alternative workflow (e.g. prefer update on an existing priority, or check tracker_priorities_list first), so it is strong context rather than explicit routing.

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