create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about the destination directory (10_Inbox) and the return format (8-character issue ID), but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior on failure. Some behavioral traits (e.g., that it's a write operation) are implied by 'create' but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers all three parameters, mentions the return ID, and specifies the destination directory. Since an output schema exists, the return value mention is extra but not necessary. It lacks notes about constraints (e.g., uniqueness) or error handling, but for a simple create tool it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful descriptions for each parameter: 'Short descriptive name', 'Detailed description', 'Optional list of tags for categorization.' This goes beyond the bare schema and gives clear semantic guidance.

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, resource, and destination: 'Create a new issue in the 10_Inbox directory.' This specific verb+resource+location distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_issue, update_issue, and move_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The verb 'create' implies usage for new issues, but there are no exclusions or mentions of alternatives. The context from sibling names is not explicitly leveraged.

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