paperclip_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but it does not state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response format is. It also doesn't mention any side effects like notifications or whether the issue is immediately visible. Significant gaps remain.

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 sentence with no wasted words and is appropriately concise. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, it could benefit from a sentence on when to use it, given the large sibling set, but the current length is efficient.

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?

This is a creation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and complex optional parameters (like dueDate, priority). The description does not cover return values, error conditions, or field requirements beyond the schema's mandatory title. For an agent to decide whether to call this, it needs to know what happens upon success, which is missing.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the tool creates an issue. It does not explain relationships between parameters, such as that parentId is for sub-tasks, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('issue/task on the Paperclip Kanban board'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like paperclip_update_issue or paperclip_create_goal, though the action is fairly unique. It lacks detail on the board context that could set it apart from other create tools.

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 this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing projectId, or when to prefer other tools like paperclip_create_goal. An agent must infer usage from the schema, which only lists optional parameters.

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