create_issue

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

Annotations indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and no idempotency (idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: sub-issue creation, markdown support, and return of issue identifier, going beyond annotation info.

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 sentences with no fluff. The key action and optional features are front-loaded. Every sentence adds 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?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essentials: required params (project, title), optional features (sub-issue, markdown), and return value. Minor gaps like permissions or project existence are not critical for basic use.

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 86%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for the 'description' parameter (markdown support); other parameters rely on schema descriptions which are minimal. No substantial enrichment beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new issue in a Huly project and optionally as a sub-issue. It specifies the action and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue_from_template'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_issue_from_template' or 'create_component'. It only mentions optional sub-issue creation but lacks when-not-to-use context.

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