create_bug

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

The description explicitly notes this is a write operation protected by whitelist and frequency limits, which adds valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively for the key concerns.

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 a parenthetical, which is concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could be structured more clearly, e.g., separating the behavioral note from the main purpose.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and key behavioral constraints. It does not explain return values or the relationship between project and bug, but these are not critical for a create operation.

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 schema already provides clear parameter meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, resulting in no extra value beyond the baseline set by the schema.

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 tool creates a bug in a specified project, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, create_requirement, and create_todo, which have different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings. No when-not scenarios or alternative tool references are provided.

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