create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: sections are validated the same way set_state validates them, and the ticket "starts in the form every other tool expects," which tells the agent the creation guarantees a canonical shape. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the section model, then the conditional Done-when rule. No waste or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key cross-tool behavioral contract (section validation parity, canonical form) but leaves minor gaps such as the Impact section mentioned only in the schema and no note on team/title requirements.

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 60%, so the schema already documents team, parent, sections (with detailed formatting rules) and project_id, leaving title and project_id thinner. The description reinforces the section model and its relationship to set_state, but omits the Impact section and adds no syntax beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Create a ticket"), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It also references sibling tools (set_state, set_status) to explain how the created ticket behaves, though it doesn't contrast with other creation-adjacent siblings. Clear, with partial sibling context.

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?

Gives one conditional rule: include a Done when section if the ticket will be closed via set_status. That is useful context but is guidance about a section rather than when to choose create_issue itself. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance.

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