gh_create_issue

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

The annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the tool is disabled unless MCP_GH_ALLOW_WRITE_COMMANDS=true, and with default MCP_GH_CONFIRM_WRITE_COMMANDS=true a human must approve the command before execution. This discloses operational prerequisites and interaction flow without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences: one for the primary purpose and one for required operational caveats. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action statement.

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 tool has six parameters and a required subset, but the description omits any parameter semantics or what happens on success/failure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. For a write tool with additional config gates, it covers the essentials but leaves notable gaps in usage nuance.

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 description coverage is 0% and the tool description mentions no parameters at all. While names like owner, repo, and title are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify formats for labels or assignees (e.g., names vs. IDs). With no schema descriptions and no textual compensation, this is a significant gap.

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 starts with 'Create a new issue in a repository,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_create_pr (create pull request) and gh_edit_issue (edit existing 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 usage through the action 'create a new issue' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_create_pr or gh_edit_issue. It only supplies operational constraints about write permissions and approval, not scenarios or exclusions.

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