Create Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is clear. The description adds that required fields may vary by configuration, but does not describe permissions, side effects, or the created issue response. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key parameter instruction. There is no redundant filler.

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 tool has a complex free-form nested fields object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description gives only a minimal hint about required subfields and says nothing about the return value or field formats, leaving an agent likely to need external Jira knowledge to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully names project, issuetype, and summary within the fields object, but with one arbitrary nested object, it does not explain field formats, allowed values, or how project/issuetype should be identified.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create an issue.' This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like jira_update_issue and jira_delete_issue. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, so it is clear but not exceptional.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_rest or jira_update_issue. It only tells the agent to provide the fields object, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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