create_issue

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

The description discloses a crucial behavioral requirement: always get user approval before calling. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and does not contradict them.

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 compact with two sentences: one for purpose and one for the critical approval protocol. Every word contributes, and it is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple with well-documented parameters and annotations. The description covers the essential workflow, though it does not mention the return value (e.g., created issue URL), which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra parameter details beyond the approval instruction mentioning title and body.

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 tool opens a new issue in a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like comment_on_issue or open_pr.

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 clear context for creating an issue and includes an explicit mandatory approval step. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or compare to alternatives, but the use case is obvious.

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