nexus_create_bug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate bugs, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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 12 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or system constraints. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior beyond the basic creation action.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all 12 parameters well-documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter context.

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 bug/issue card') and the resource ('in a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexus_update_card' or explain how this creation differs from other creation tools in the server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'nexus_update_card' for bug creation scenarios, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for bug creation.

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