create_issue_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on failure, or if it's idempotent. It also doesn't describe the return value or any side effects, which is critical for a creation tool with no output schema.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return values, and it ignores the complexity of the nested 'issue_type_data' parameter. Given the context signals, more detail is needed to guide effective tool usage.

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 50%, with only 'project_id' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema, failing to explain the complex 'issue_type_data' object or its required fields like 'name' and 'description'. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the schema provides some structure, it meets the baseline for minimal viability.

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 resource ('new issue type in a project'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue' or 'create_label' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_issue_type' or 'delete_issue_type' in the same domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue_type' or 'list_issue_types'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or constraints, like permissions required for creation. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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