jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that plain-text descriptions are converted to ADF and identifies the HTTP method. It does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the ADF note is a valuable second piece of information.

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 description is minimally viable: it identifies the action and a key conversion behavior. Yet with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it leaves gaps around expected return values, how extraFields should be shaped, and how required fields relate to other Jira lookup tools. More context would help an agent invoke it correctly on first try.

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 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaningful semantics only for 'description' by explaining ADF conversion. projectKey, summary, assigneeAccountId, and extraFields receive no additional explanation beyond their names, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for several 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an issue' with the exact endpoint 'POST /rest/api/3/issue'. This clearly distinguishes it from update, transition, and comment tools, and the endpoint adds precision beyond the tool name.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'creates' — use this when a new Jira issue is needed. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with related tools like jira_edit_issue or transition_issue, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing projectKey or issueType metadata.

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