jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces this by warning against blind retries after timeout, which is exactly the practical consequence of non-idempotency. It also discloses that Jira validates required fields and create-screen permissions, adding server-side failure context not present in annotations. It omits what the response contains, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with operation type and required inputs, then constraints and the retry hazard. Nothing is padded and every clause carries operational value.

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?

Covers required inputs, permission and validation behavior, and a retry hazard for a 9-parameter mutation with nested customFields. The one notable gap is that there is no output schema and the description never says what is returned (e.g., the created issue key), which an agent needs to chain a follow-up call.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning where the schema is thin: issueType must be the exact Jira name (not an ID or guess), assignee is a Server username rather than a display name, and custom fields use raw IDs. Those are the highest-risk ambiguity points for this tool, though some points (custom field IDs) merely restate schema text.

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 ('WRITE: create one Jira issue') with single-issue scope, and the WRITE prefix separates it from the read-oriented siblings like jira_get_issue and jira_search_issues. An agent can route on this without opening 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?

Gives clear preconditions: project key, exact issue type name, and summary are required, and create-screen permissions must exist. It adds an operational rule ('Never retry blindly after a timeout') but does not explicitly contrast with jira_update_issue or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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