create_issue_template

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

The description discloses the creation action (mutation) and the return value (created template ID and title). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. No contradictions; additional details like side effects or permissions are not expected.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, explanation of templates, optional children and return. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool with 8 parameters and nested children, the description covers the core concepts and return value. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage, though it could mention that the project must exist.

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?

The input schema has 88% coverage with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'children' (become sub-issues) and the overall concept of templates. This goes beyond the schema's technical details.

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 action 'Create a new issue template' with a specific resource 'in a Huly project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue' and 'create_issue_from_template' by focusing on template creation and default values.

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 explains that templates define default values for new issues and optionally include children for sub-tasks. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use or avoid this tool, the context from sibling tools provides implicit differentiation, and the description offers clear usage context.

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