create-issue-type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires admin permissions, if there are limits on custom issue types per project, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and follows good front-loading principles by stating the core action immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new issue type ID), doesn't mention potential error conditions or constraints, and provides no context about how this fits into the broader issue management workflow. The combination of mutation nature plus lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context.

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 description mentions creating 'in a project' which aligns with the project_id parameter, and 'custom issue type' which relates to the name parameter. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the structured schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation but not enhancing parameter understanding significantly.

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') and resource ('new custom issue type in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar creation tools like 'create-issue' or 'create-state', which would require mentioning it's specifically for issue type metadata rather than actual issues or other project elements.

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. With sibling tools like 'create-issue' (for actual issues) and 'update-issue-type' (for modifying existing issue types), there's no indication of when this creation tool is appropriate versus those other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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