jira_create_issue

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Create' but does not disclose permission requirements, whether the token needs specific scopes, rate limits, whether a failure returns partial state, or what the created issue looks like. The saved-default note is the only behavioral hint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though slightly under-specified for a write operation.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain credential requirements, issue type defaults, or what happens on failure. For a 7-param create operation it is too thin to fully guide an agent.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description only echoes project_key's saved-default behavior, which the schema also mentions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Jira issue.' Distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_issue, jira_search_issues, jira_add_comment, and jira_list_projects. Doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the create action is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage — you call it to make an issue. The hint about project_key coming from a saved memory default is a useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of required auth beyond the schema.

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