CreateIssue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, whether the issue is persisted locally vs. synced, or what destructiveHint=true actually implies for this create operation.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is fine, but the parenthetical '(Tapir, Issue Management Commands)' is vague noise that doesn't help an agent. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutating create tool with a destructive annotation, three parameters, no output schema, and an ambiguous domain term ('issue'), the description omits what an agent needs: required fields, whether parentIssueId nests an existing issue, and how this relates to tapir_run_command. Inadequate 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 coverage is only 67%, and the description supplies zero parameter semantics — it does not even mention name, tagText, or parentIssueId. With a moderate coverage gap, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new issue'), which is clear enough to act on. However it offers no differentiation from the sibling GetIssues or from the generic tapir_run_command/tapir_describe_command pair, and 'issue' is never defined (Archicad issue vs. tracker 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (GetIssues, tapir_run_command, archicad_run_api_command). The parenthetical '(Tapir, Issue Management Commands)' reads as a namespace label rather than usage direction.

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