jira_fields_create_context

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

The description correctly indicates a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and explicitly describes the return structure {success, field_id, context: {id, name, project_ids, issue_type_ids}}, adding value beyond annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: it states the primary action, explains the concept, and lists the return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the parameter count (5) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return description), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It could explicitly mention mutation, but annotations already cover that.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the role of project/issue type IDs in scoping, which enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('context for a custom field'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_fields_update_context or jira_fields_delete_context by specifying it is for creation.

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 explains that contexts determine field visibility and can be scoped with project/issue type IDs in the same call. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for selection among sibling tools.

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