createJiraIssue

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the creation action without mentioning potential side effects, return values, permissions, or error conditions. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' example, which scored 2.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and scope, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 simple create tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps about what the agent should expect after invocation (e.g., returns created issue? confirmation?). It's adequate but not rich.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds nothing beyond 'provided details,' not even linking the params to the Jira domain. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Creates a new issue in a specified Jira project with the provided details' uses a specific verb ('creates'), names the resource ('Jira issue'), and indicates the project scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like updateJiraIssue and listJiraIssues.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateJiraIssue or addJiraComment. The description lacks any context about preferring this for new issues or exclusions for existing ones.

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