jira_create_ticket

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

The description discloses the critical safety mechanism (dry_run default) and requirements for actual mutation, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details like what happens on ticket creation (e.g., returns ticket ID?), error scenarios, or permissions beyond RBAC mention.

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 extremely concise, using bullet points to front-load the most critical safety information. Every sentence is essential, with no wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and explanations for incident_id and project_key, limiting an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds context for dry_run, reason, confirm_token, and idempotency_key, explaining their roles. But incident_id and project_key are left undocumented, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool name 'jira_create_ticket' clearly indicates creation of a Jira ticket. The description reinforces this by discussing parameters like dry_run that control actual creation, though it doesn't explicitly state 'creates a Jira ticket'.

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 implies usage for creating Jira tickets with a safety dry_run mode, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like jira_draft_ticket or jira_add_comment.

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