create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the core action without addressing mutation behavior, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., notifications). This leaves the agent with insufficient insight into the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence ('Create a new issue in a Taiga project') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity, some additional structure or context might be expected.

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 minimal and lacks essential context such as return value information, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more completeness to aid agent decision-making.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., parameter descriptions, required fields). Therefore, the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('issue') within the 'Taiga project' context, which distinguishes it from tools like create_task or create_epic. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from update_issue or issue lifecycle details, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 create_issue versus siblings such as create_task, create_userstory, or update_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, the relationship to other tools, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen.

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