project_create_issue

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, so the creation is non-destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It only repeats the creation action already implied by the tool name.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the key parameters or providing a brief example.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., created issue ID), how the 'template' parameter works, or how to use 'labels' and 'assignees' effectively. The sibling tools are related but not differentiated.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no new semantic information beyond '(supports Japanese)' which is already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Create', resource 'issue', and context 'repository', with the distinguishing feature of supporting Japanese. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like project_edit_issue.

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 use for creating issues, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like project_add_item or project_edit_issue. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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