create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new issue' and lists parameters, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, validation behavior, idempotency, or response characteristics. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 plus a structured Args list. Every parameter is listed succinctly without fluff, making it easy to scan and parse. No redundant information is included.

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?

The description covers all parameters and includes an output schema, so return values are handled. However, it lacks broader context such as required permissions, error conditions, or behavioral caveats. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: project_id is a UUID, description is HTML, priority lists allowed values (urgent, high, medium, low, none), and assignees/labels are UUID lists. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some semantics (e.g., state_id meaning) remain thin.

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 'Create a new issue in a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_issue, delete_issue, and get_issue. The action and target are 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and parameter list.

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