redmine_create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the creation action and return value. It does not mention required permissions, the fact that this creates a persistent record, failure/error behavior, or any constraints beyond creation.

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 with no filler and front-loads the create action. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail that other dimensions need.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It tells an agent what the tool is called for but not how to construct a valid invocation beyond what the raw JSON schema already shows.

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 0% across 14 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It does not even mention that project_id and subject are required or what values each field expects.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Redmine issue,' which clearly separates it from siblings like redmine_update_issue, redmine_list_issues, and redmine_delete_issue. Adding that it returns the created issue with its assigned ID further removes ambiguity.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention that updates should go to redmine_update_issue or that listing should go to redmine_list_issues.

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