create_issue

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, which is ambiguous. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: that title and body are sent to gh through stdin and are NOT written to the audit log. This is valuable transparency about side effects/privacy implications beyond what annotations provide. It would be stronger with mention of permissions required or idempotency caveats, but the audit-log note is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose; the second adds the key behavioral nuance about stdin and audit-log exclusion. Front-loaded and 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?

For a create operation with no output schema and mostly self-explanatory params, the description covers the critical context: permitted scope and audit implications. It lacks detail on what the response contains or whether creation is idempotent, but annotations already flag idempotentHint=false. The audit-log disclosure is significant and useful. Slightly more could be said about return values, keeping it from a 5.

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 only 20% (only 'repository' has a description stating 'owner/name format'). The description doesn't explain the title/body parameters or the hostname parameter. However, the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory (title, body, account, hostname). The description adds the useful fact that title/body bypass the audit log, which is a semantic nuance not captured in the schema, earning a modest above-baseline score for a 5-param tool with low 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 clearly states the action ('Create an issue') and the resource ('in an allowed repository'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'allowed repository' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_issue or comment_issue, though the verb 'Create' makes the purpose fairly evident among the many issue/pull-request 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 implies usage context ('in an allowed repository') suggesting there may be repository restrictions, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives. There's no explicit statement about prerequisites (e.g., needing auth status) or exclusionary guidance versus update_issue/comment_issue. The phrase 'allowed repository' gives partial guidance but no concrete when-to-use criteria.

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