Create Issue Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a mutating write, whether auth/permissions are required, or that labels/owner defaults apply; 'create' is the only behavioral signal given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is tight, though arguably too sparse for a mutation tool, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the schema fully documents all five parameters, so those burdens are lifted. What remains missing is any usage or behavioral context for a write operation, leaving the definition minimally viable.

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%, so every parameter (body, repo, owner, title, labels) is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.

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 new issue') plus the domain (GitHub repository), which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_issue_tool and list_issues_tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from the closer siblings update_issue_tool and create_issue_comment_tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_issue_comment_tool for adding comments or update_issue_tool for edits. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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