create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful behavior, that localized IDs are normalized automatically. It does not state permission requirements, whether required-field validation is enforced server-side, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the setup step; nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 creation action and the ID-discovery path are covered, and the full input schema is available. Without an output schema, though, the description says nothing about what a successful call returns or how failures surface, which matters for a write tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are self-documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds moderate value by pointing the agent to reference-data entities for the StatusId and TypeId values it must supply.

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 and resource, stating it will 'Log a new issue in a project.' That clearly separates it from get_issue, get_project_issues and update_issue among the siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite, telling the agent to fetch issuestatuses and issuetypes via get_reference_data before calling. However, it does not say when to use this versus update_issue, or what conditions should block creation such as missing project or duplicate issues.

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