issue_create

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden for a write operation. It does not state permission requirements, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate issues, or what the response contains. The only behavioral hint is the cryptic note that fields map names or ids to plain values.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for an 8-parameter create tool it is terse to the point of under-specification. Efficiency is good; sufficiency is not.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 8 parameters (two required), and a nested object, the description omits required-field guidance, site/project defaults, return value, and failure behavior. An agent could not call this confidently without reading the schema closely.

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 63%, and the description adds real meaning only for the nested `fields` object, explaining that keys may be names or ids and values are plain. Other params (labels, summary) remain undocumented in both schema and description, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Create an issue." That clearly separates it from issue_get, issue_update, issue_delete, and issue_transition. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus issue_update or issue_transition, no prerequisites (site, project, permissions), and no note about required type/summary. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the schema.

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