jira_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. It discloses the creation behavior, required parameters, the return value (JSON with issue key), and a Cloud-specific nuance for assignee_name. It lacks details on permissions, validation, or side effects, but covers the key behavioral aspects for a create tool.

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 well-structured with an opening summary, a caveat, an Args list, and a Returns line. The Args list is justified because the schema lacks descriptions. The 'Optional fields include...' sentence is slightly redundant with the Args list, but it provides a quick overview, so it still earns its place.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the return value, and a platform-specific behavior. It does not address potential errors, permissions, or custom field formatting, but for a creation tool this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with meaningful explanations, examples (e.g., project_key example, issue type examples), and the Cloud versus Server/DC distinction for assignee_name. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with 'Creates a new issue in a specified Jira project' — a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_search_issues. It also lists required vs optional parameters, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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?

Provides clear context on required fields and optional fields, plus a specific platform caveat for Cloud instances (accountId vs username). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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