jira_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Create a new issue' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what authentication scopes are needed, what happens to existing data, or what the response format is (e.g., returns issue key). For a mutation tool, 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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. However, it is slightly under-specified for the complexity of the tool; a few more sentences would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., valid issue types). A creation tool typically needs more context for correct invocation, and the current description falls short.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra context like parameter constraints or examples.

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 a new issue in Jira' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('issue in Jira') clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_search_issues', 'jira_get_issue', and 'jira_update_issue'. It is unambiguous and directly states the action.

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 such as 'jira_update_issue' or 'jira_add_comment'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project key from 'jira_get_projects') or any context for when creation is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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