gitlab_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation via POST, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds little beyond what 'Creates an issue' already implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation and adds the endpoint as useful technical context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is an issue-creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no behavioral or parameter context. An agent would have to infer important details such as required fields beyond the schema, label syntax, assignee ID types, and expected return data. The description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 only 20%, with only projectId documented in the schema. The tool description provides no parameter details, nor does it compensate for the undocumented title, labels, assigneeIds, and description parameters. It does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Creates an issue' and identifies the specific resource and endpoint (POST /projects/:id/issues), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The GitLab prefix in the tool name further distinguishes it from similar create-issue tools like jira_create_issue.

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 gitlab_get_issue or jira_create_issue. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between similar issue-related tools.

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