createIssue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/repeat semantics are covered; the description adds the genuinely new detail that the write is performed as the API-key user. The 'not idempotent' clause largely restates the annotation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the create scope front-loaded and the routing constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description covers mutation semantics, actor, idempotency, and the alternative tool; it does not mention the required projectId/subject pairing, but the schema marks those as required.

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?

With 16 parameters and only 63% schema description coverage, the schema carries most of the burden. The phrase 'core or custom fields' loosely gestures at customFieldsJson and the field families, but adds no syntax, format, or mapping detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Redmine issue) and scopes it to a known project with core or custom fields. The second sentence names the sibling it is not (updateIssue), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-not condition and the alternative: 'use updateIssue when the issue already exists'. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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