Create an issue

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond confirming the creation action, which is consistent.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a purpose (action statement, parameter explanation, nesting hint).

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 covers the creation action and key parameters but omits return value behavior. With no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the created object's structure. Still, it's sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, but the description adds valuable context: labels are label ids, type is a type id from tracker definitions, and parentIssueId creates a sub-issue. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 action ('Create a new issue') and the specific resource ('Rootr issue tracker'). It is distinct from sibling tools like rootr_get_issue, rootr_list_issues, and rootr_update_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 when to use the tool (to create issues) and provides guidance on parameter values, referencing rootr_read for definitions. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references, but the context is clear.

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