create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and provides important workflow guidance about using get_create_metadata first. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on successful creation.

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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the important 'IMPORTANT' warning is appropriately front-loaded for maximum visibility.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by providing clear purpose and essential workflow guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID/key) or addressing common failure scenarios, given the tool's 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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the need to use get_create_metadata for customFields discovery. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 the specific action ('Create a new Jira issue') and resource ('with specified fields'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_issue, assign_issue, or add_comment. It provides a complete, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 explicitly states 'IMPORTANT: Always use get_create_metadata first' with clear reasoning ('to discover required fields, custom fields, and allowed values'). This provides specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives and establishes a prerequisite workflow.

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