jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces that it creates an issue. It adds the workflow constraint that confirmPublish must be true after review, though the schema already encodes the const true requirement.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the key constraint second. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant filler.

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 complex creation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected return value, the relationship to jira_get_create_fields or jira_preview_issue, or what happens if additionalFields are invalid.

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 88%, so the schema already explains most parameters such as summary, projectKey, issueTypeId, and additionalFields. The description adds no significant parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the core action 'Cria uma issue no Jira', with the verb 'Cria' clearly marking this as a creation tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue and jira_preview_issue, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 phrase 'Exige confirmPublish: true após revisão' implies that the tool should be used after reviewing the issue and confirming publication. It gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool names, so the usage context is only implied.

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