Create Defect

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate this is a write operation. The description adds value by explaining the defect's future use with matchers, but does not introduce significant behavioral details beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second provides essential context about downstream use. No redundant or fluff content.

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?

For a creation tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and future linkage to matchers. It could explicitly mention that the defect is created in the 'current project', but this is implied. No major gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new defect' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_defect or delete_defect. The mention of linking to test results via matchers provides additional context.

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 advises using this tool to 'register a known defect that can later be linked to failing test results', giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a higher score.

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