jira_describe_create

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe metadata read, and the description adds valuable return-content detail (writable fields, required flags, value shapes, allowed values) that compensates for the absence of an output schema. It does not mention that results are scoped per project/type beyond the brief parenthetical, leaving some behavior inferred.

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 front-loaded sentences with no waste: the trigger condition first, then a precise enumeration of what is returned. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and it explains the return payload well enough for the agent to consume it before creating an issue. Annotations cover the safety profile, so remaining gaps are minor.

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% with only two required parameters, both fully documented in the schema (including the pointer to jira_get_issue_types). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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: it returns the field metadata (writable fields, required fields, value shapes, allowed values) for issue creation. Clear enough that an agent knows what it does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the parallel jira_describe_edit sibling.

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?

"Call before creating an issue" gives explicit, actionable timing for when to use it. There is no statement of when not to use it and no named alternative, but the intended invocation point is unambiguous.

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