import_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions preserving timestamps and author, but for a mutation tool it fails to disclose important traits such as key conflict handling, permission requirements, or whether existing issues with the same key are overwritten. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler words. It earns its place by conveying the core purpose and the key distinctive behavior.

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?

Although the schema is rich and an output schema exists, the description is very sparse for a tool with 16 parameters and no annotations. It lacks context about import semantics, such as duplicate key behavior or prerequisites, but the schema compensates for parameter understanding, making it minimally adequate.

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%, with each of the 16 parameters clearly documented (e.g., created_at as 'Original creation time'). The description adds little beyond reinforcing the 'original' nature of created_at and created_by, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('an issue'), and clarifies the distinctive behavior of preserving original timestamps and author. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue, which would normally set these fields to the current time and user.

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 implies the use case of importing an issue with original metadata, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like create_issue, so it falls just short of a 5.

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