post_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no side effects (notifications, attachment copying), no required-field behavior, no error conditions.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the first with only 'within a project' added. That duplication is waste rather than signal.

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 create tool with a nested object of five required fields and no output schema, the description should at minimum note required inputs and any prerequisite lookups (get_issue_categories_collection, get_issue_statuses_collection, get_project). None of that is present, so the definition is not complete enough to call this tool correctly without reading the schema.

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 0% per the context signals, and the single 'body' wrapper has no description at all. The nested required fields (project_id, name, description, issue_category_id, issue_status_id) are only identifiable by reading the schema, and the description gives no hint that these are mandatory or what identifiers must be resolved first.

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 first sentence states a clear verb+resource ('Create an issue'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, the second sentence merely restates the first with a mild scoping qualifier and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like put_issue, post_issue_task, or post_batch_update_issues.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., put_issue for updates, post_batch_update_issues for bulk), and no prerequisites such as needing valid issue_category_id/issue_status_id values. The 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.