Create issues

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: it constitutes 'one undo step', supports optional comments/attachments, and guarantees results are returned 'in input order'. It doesn't state permission/auth requirements or rollback specifics.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource and use case in a single dense sentence, followed by an output-shape block. The output specification is verbose but earns its place since no output schema exists; overall it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by spelling out the return structure and its input-order guarantee. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete; only auth/permission behavior is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents name, attach types, comments, parentIssue, tagText, and undoName in detail. The description only gestures at 'comments and attached elements' at a high level, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 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 ('Creates') and resource ('issues in the Issue Manager') with scope ('one or more') and optional sub-content (comments, attached elements). An agent can clearly distinguish this from siblings like get_issues, delete_issue, add_issue_comment, and attach_elements_to_issue.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case — reporting model problems (clashes, missing data, review notes) so the user sees them in Archicad and can export to BCF. This is strong positive guidance, but it names no alternative or when-not-to-use condition (e.g. versus add_issue_comment for existing issues).

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