Create Version

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

The annotation destructiveHint=false only indicates the tool is not destructive. The description adds that it creates a 'fix version,' which clarifies the mutation type and resource, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, uniqueness constraints, or side effects. While it adds some light context beyond annotations, it lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 that wastes no words. It effectively conveys the essential purpose without any filler or repetition.

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?

Given the full input schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and the simple create operation, the description plus structured data are largely sufficient for correct invocation. However, it does not mention sibling differentiation (batch vs single) or any additional context like where the version appears, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including format patterns for project_key and date formats. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the full semantic burden.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Create a new fix version in a Jira project." This distinguishes the action (create) and object (fix version) well. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool jira_batch_create_versions, but the singular "a new" implies a single version, so it is not fully distinguished.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_batch_create_versions or jira_update_version. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or alternative references.

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