jira_create_issue

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two-phase workflow (describe_create then create) and that the fields object accepts ids or aliases, but says nothing about required fields, permission scope, failure modes, or what a rejected payload looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps 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?

Two short sentences, the action statement front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the one genuinely hard part of this tool: how to construct the opaque fields object. It omits error/permission behavior, which is the only notable gap for a write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the single parameter is a free-form nested object (additionalProperties), so the schema alone cannot tell an agent what to put in it. The description compensates by stating keys may be field ids or business aliases and pointing to jira_describe_create for value shapes — meaningfully beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('Create an issue'), which is unambiguous against the read/update/delete siblings (jira_get_issue, jira_update_issue, jira_delete_issue). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other create-flavored siblings such as jira_create_remote_link or jira_add_worklog, but the resource is precise enough that misrouting is unlikely.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call jira_describe_create first for the field template.' This is real routing guidance for the create path. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., to modify an existing issue use jira_update_issue), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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