Create an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description reinforces the write side effect ("This writes to GitHub") and, more usefully, explains the consequence of non-idempotency in concrete terms — duplicate calls create duplicate issues. It stops short of permission/scope requirements or rate-limit behavior, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then side effect then precondition then pitfall. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or parameters, and it covers the two things an agent could get wrong: calling unprompted and creating duplicates. Missing only auth/permission context for a mutating open-world tool.

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%; every parameter including labels and body format is documented in the schema. The description adds only the "one repository" framing, which duplicates the owner/repo semantics rather than extending them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Open a GitHub issue in one repository" is a specific verb+resource with explicit scope, unambiguous against the read-only siblings (list_issues, get_repo_activity). It does not name a sibling for contrast, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Call it only when the user has explicitly asked to create an issue" gives a clear, checkable precondition and implicitly excludes autonomous use. No alternative tool or fallback path is named for the case where the user only wants to read or search issues.

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