create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: system validates parent types during creation, default values for priority and status, and hierarchy constraints. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 clear sections (Available issue types, Supported hierarchy structures, Available status values, Key aspects, Best practices) but could be more concise. Some information is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'open' status listed twice), but overall it's efficiently organized with front-loaded 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context about hierarchy rules, valid values, defaults, and system behavior. It doesn't describe the return format or error responses, but covers most operational aspects needed for successful tool invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning and constraints of parameters: it defines all possible values for 'type', 'status', and 'priority', explains parent-child relationships and hierarchy rules, and clarifies prerequisites define execution order 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 specific action ('creates a new issue') and resource ('in the task trellis system'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_issue' or 'delete_issue' by focusing on creation. It immediately establishes this is for creating tasks, projects, or work items within a hierarchical system.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to create new issues' and provides extensive context about when to use it through hierarchy rules, status values, and best practices. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than modification, listing, or deletion operations.

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