create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new Jira issue' and does not mention side effects, return values, authentication requirements, failure modes, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is appropriately concise for a basic purpose statement. However, it is too under-specified for a tool with six parameters, though that is more an issue of completeness than structure.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. A create operation with six parameters needs at least guidance on parameter meaning, likely return value, and usage context. The single sentence does not enable an agent to invoke the tool correctly for non-trivial cases.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description itself does not mention or explain any of the six parameters (e.g., what projectKey is, valid priority values, or how labels are formatted). The tool provides no semantic meaning beyond raw parameter names and types.

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 states 'Create a new Jira issue,' which is a specific verb ('create') and resource ('Jira issue'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'create_smart_issue,' but the straightforward action is still understandable in context.

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 instead of alternatives, such as create_smart_issue, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. There is no mention of required projectKey/summary or any setup conditions.

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