Create an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaning the annotations cannot: write-mode must be enabled first, and the returned object matches get_issue's shape with a `number` usable as a stable handle thereafter — genuinely useful invocation context.

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 compact clauses with zero padding; the operation and its required inputs come first, and the return-shape note follows. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return value and how to reference the created issue. The write-mode gate is disclosed. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether repository-level permissions or scopes are also needed.

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% and every parameter is described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms title is required and body is optional, but adds no syntax or domain meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create an issue in a repository') and names the exact required inputs (owner/repo/title), which distinguishes it from the siblings edit_issue, comment_on_issue, and list_issues without needing to open the schema.

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?

It states a real precondition — 'requires write mode' — which tells the agent it must call enable_write_mode first, and it points at get_issue for the result shape. It does not explicitly contrast with edit_issue or comment_on_issue, but the create-vs-edit distinction is inferable from the sibling names.

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