Create issue

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that it performs an authoritative readback when stable identity is available and that it never retries ambiguous mutations. It also explicitly states it does not edit, close, comment, or delete existing issues, providing full transparency.

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 concise and structured, with each sentence carrying relevant information about the operation, gates, readback, retry behavior, and scope. No unnecessary fluff is present.

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?

The description provides complete context about the mutation's behavior, including the readback confirmation, retry policy, and explicit scope limitations. Given that an output schema exists, the lack of return value details is acceptable.

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?

The schema descriptions are comprehensive for all parameters, covering owner, repo, title, body, labels, and assignees with constraints. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline given high 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 states the tool creates exactly one issue in a target repository, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also specifies 'additive write', distinguishing it from edit or delete operations.

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 mentions the requirement of write gate and repository policy, indicating when it's allowed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like edit or state change. However, the 'additive write' phrasing implies usage for creation, which is fairly explicit.

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