github_issue_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses execution via gh as the configured account, that dry_run returns the exact command, that live requires human approval, and that it is a no-op when the github_issues run option is off. It omits error/auth-failure handling, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose and content conventions come first, followed by execution behavior and gating. Every sentence carries information; the terse 'n/a (nothing runs)' phrasing is slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior (dry_run, human approval, run-option gating) an agent needs before calling it. Only the undocumented repo and approval_id parameters leave a small gap.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for title, labels (role label + next|later), body (what/why/done-when), dry_run and app_dir, and implies approval_id via 'live: human approval', but repo and approval_id are never named explicitly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open an issue for postponed work') and immediately distinguishes it from sibling repo/push tools by naming the intended workflow. The 'postponed work' framing and content conventions make the tool's niche clear without opening the 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?

Gives a clear context for when to use it ('for postponed work') and explains the dry_run vs live approval flow, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (github_issues_bootstrap) as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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