create-intake-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. It states 'Create a new intake/inbox issue', which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Create a new intake/inbox issue'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'intake/inbox issue' is, how it differs from other issues, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 4 parameters (e.g., project_id, name, description_html, priority with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new intake/inbox issue' clearly states the action (create) and resource (intake/inbox issue), but it's vague about what distinguishes an 'intake/inbox issue' from a regular issue. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-issue' or 'create-sub-issue', leaving ambiguity about the specific type of issue being created.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-issue' or 'create-sub-issue'. The description implies it's for creating a specific type of issue (intake/inbox), but without context on what that means or when it's appropriate, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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