Create Redmine Issue

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the note that it 'Returns: The created issue details' and provides user-preference handling instructions, but does not disclose any specific behavioral side effects (e.g., notifications, audit trails). No contradiction with annotations.

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 list of parameters that largely duplicates the schema, followed by a lengthy user-preference paragraph that is not central to invoking this tool. It is not concise; the preference block could be moved to a separate context tool, but it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not explain how to obtain valid IDs (e.g., via redmine_list_projects), nor does it clarify required vs optional fields beyond the schema. The preference instructions are helpful but not directly relevant to creating an issue.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, and the description largely repeats the schema descriptions without adding significant extra context (e.g., how dates are validated, how to resolve IDs). The parent_issue_id mention adds a minor hint for subtasks, but overall the description adds little beyond 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 it creates a new issue in Redmine, with a comprehensive list of supported fields. It is distinct from siblings like redmine_update_issue and redmine_add_note, which serve different purposes.

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 includes an extensive block about user preferences, instructing the agent to ask which projects the user works on and save preferences, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to update versus create). The preference guidance is useful but tangential to the tool's core usage.

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