create_issue_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Create an issue type' with no mention of side effects, idempotency, uniqueness constraints on the key, permissions required, or error behavior. This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the primary action. It is not verbose or bloated, which is appropriate for a simple create operation. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add value, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and only a minimal description, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain key behavioral aspects like key uniqueness, localization requirements, or how this tool fits into the broader issue-type workflow. Although an output schema exists, the lack of any usage or side-effect context makes the tool difficult to use correctly in all scenarios.

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 fully describes both parameters ('key' with example and 'name' with localization example), achieving 100% schema description coverage. Per the baseline, the description does not need to add parameter information, and it adds none. The schema is sufficient, so a score of 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?

The description 'Create an issue type' clearly states the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling create tools like create_priority or create_status by explicitly naming 'issue type'. However, it is minimal and essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional detail about what an issue type is or how it differs from related concepts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description provides no context beyond the action itself, leaving the agent without information about appropriate use cases or constraints (e.g., whether issue types must be created before issues reference them).

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