create_issue

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

The description is concise and correctly indicates that the tool creates an issue (a write operation). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so without contradictions. The behavioral implication is clear: this is a mutation that will persist data. It could be improved by noting any prerequisites, such as the need for the user to have project permissions, but the current text is honest and minimally sufficient.

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, concise sentence in Japanese that conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it scanable. Every word earns its place, and nothing extraneous is included.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description is somewhat underpowered. It provides the basic purpose but omits context such as required fields, typical usage patterns, or behavior on success. An agent would need to rely solely on the schema to understand mandatory inputs like `projectKey`, `summary`, and `issueType`. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema's description coverage is 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are documented in the schema alone. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., parameter types, descriptions, or relationships). According to the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate with extra context like parameter ordering or dependencies.

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 verb ("作成します") and the resource ("JIRA に新しい課題"), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like `update_issue`, `add_comment`, or `transition_issue`, which are all issue-related. The description could be improved by noting that it creates a new issue, while others modify or comment on existing ones.

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. For example, it doesn't mention that `create_issue` is used for new issues while `update_issue` modifies existing ones, or that `add_comment` appends comments. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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