gh_issue_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It tells the user the issue URL is returned, which is helpful, but it doesn't state that this is a write/mutating operation (schema implies POST semantics but nothing explicit), doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether existing labels/assignees are validated. The bare minimum write-side transparency is partially covered by 'a write never infers its target' in the schema.

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 one compact sentence plus a return-value note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and stays minimal. No wasted words. Could arguably include usage caveats, but what's there is efficient.

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?

This is a straightforward create-with-5-params tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers purpose and return value but lacks guidance on when to use it vs sibling tools and what post-conditions hold (e.g., issue number assigned, labels must pre-exist). For a simple resource-creation tool with full schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, so all 5 parameters have their own descriptions in the schema, which raises the baseline to 3. The description itself adds 'Returns the issue URL' but no additional parameter meaning. The labels comma-separated and assignee username details come from schema, not the description. This is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the verb+resource ('Create a GitHub issue') and notes the return value (issue URL). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like gh_issue_edit or gh_issue_comment, but the verb 'create' uniquely maps to this operation among them. Could add a note about the repo being the target, which is covered in schema.

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 creation as the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't differentiate from gh_issue_view, gh_issue_edit, gh_issue_comment, or gh_issues. The 'required; a write never infers its target' note on repo in the schema gives some context about requiring explicit target, but the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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