Create Issue

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context—nothing about return values, side effects, or validation requirements. It simply restates the operation without enriching the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns minimal value beyond the title and does not front-load any useful context. It is concise but not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a complex create tool (11 parameters, 5 required) with no output schema and sparse annotations. The description is far too brief to give an agent a complete picture: it doesn't explain what an issue is, what the required fields are, how to obtain valid IDs, or what the tool returns. The agent would need to make many assumptions.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 45%, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it says nothing about any parameters. It doesn't list required fields (project, subject, type, priority, severity) or clarify that type/priority/severity are Taiga IDs. The agent must rely on incomplete schema descriptions and guess at common concepts like 'status' or 'milestone'.

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) and object (issue), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It doesn't include any scope that differentiates it from other create tools (epic_create, task_create), but the noun 'issue' provides reasonable distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or contrast with issue_update/issue_delete. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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