jdra_create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects like auto-creating customers/product lines and parsing time from the title, but it does not mention write implications, error conditions, or limitations. It is transparent about the main automations but lacks broader behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, each conveying distinct valuable information (creation, assignment default, time parsing, customer/product handling). No fluff, well-organized, and easy to scan.

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 the core purpose and important behaviors, but it doesn't mention response format or success/failure outcomes. Given the 25 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on expected output would help, yet the description still provides adequate context for basic 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?

The schema descriptions are minimal, but the tool description adds significant meaning: it explains that newCustomerNames and newProductLineNames enable auto-creation, that actualMinutes can be derived from the title, and that assigneeUserId defaults to the caller. This goes beyond the schema and enriches parameter understanding.

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 it creates a JDRA issue and highlights specific automatic behaviors (self-assignment, time parsing, customer/product auto-creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related siblings like jdra_create_and_register_issue, so the purpose is clear but not maximally disambiguating.

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 mentions features but gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as jdra_import_jira_issue or jdra_create_and_register_issue. It lacks explicit use cases or conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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