create_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create', but no details on side effects (e.g., notifications, triggers), required permissions, or return values. Lacks transparency 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?

Single sentence is concise but overly terse. Lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or examples) and front-loads critical info moderately. Efficiency is good but at cost of clarity.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention mandatory vs optional fields, how to obtain required IDs, or what happens after creation. A 3-param sibling adds 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 description adds minimal value beyond parameter names and types. It does not elaborate on relationships or usage patterns (e.g., how state UUID is obtained). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new issue inside a project' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue or list_project_issues, but could be more specific about scope (e.g., in which project).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_issue_comment) or prerequisites like required permissions. Missing context for effective selection.

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