jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an issue, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what the response includes (e.g., issue key). This is a significant gap for a creation 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon success (e.g., returns an issue key), error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a creation tool with rich parameters, this leaves too many gaps for the agent.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a 'specified project' (covered by projectKey). Baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or constraints.

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 Jira issue') and the target resource ('in a specified project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_delete_issue, though the verb 'Create' implies distinction. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project access), exclusions (e.g., not for updating existing issues), or refer to sibling tools like jira_update_issue for modifications. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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