jdra_create_and_register_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it reveals two genuinely hidden behaviors: automatic self-assignment when 담당자 is unspecified, and automatic conversion of a duration token in the title (e.g., '2m') into actualMinutes. These side effects could not be inferred from the schema and materially change how the agent should construct the call.

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 text is compact and front-loads the primary action before the auto-behavior notes. However, the final fragment '두 예시 시나리오 2번(고객사 기술지원 등)' is ambiguous and does not earn its place, adding noise for an AI agent without a shared reference point.

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 26-parameter, side-effectful combined operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only three short clauses. It omits what the agent should expect on success (issue ID? report confirmation?), behavior when no weekly report exists, and any prerequisites, leaving a meaningful comprehension gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3 and all 26 parameters are already documented in Korean. The description adds some cross-parameter semantics (title duration maps to actualMinutes), but the self-assignee rule is largely duplicated in the schema's assigneeUserId description ('생략 시 본인'), so the added value is modest.

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 opening clause 'JDRA 이슈를 생성하고 곧바로 내 주간보고에 등록한다' states a specific compound action: create a JDRA issue and immediately register it to the caller's weekly report. This differentiates it from overlapping siblings like jdra_create_issue and jdra_add_issue_to_weekly_report, though the trailing '두 예시 시나리오 2번(고객사 기술지원 등)' reference is cryptic and detracts slightly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, despite heavy overlap with jdra_create_issue and jdra_add_issue_to_weekly_report. The '시나리오 2번' hint is a vague reference to an external example rather than actionable selection criteria, so an agent cannot reliably decide between calling this tool versus composing the two sibling actions separately.

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