create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: auto-filling required fields for CCOE projects. However, it does not explain what happens for non-CCOE projects, response/return behavior, error handling, or precedence if both ccoe3F and customFields are supplied. This is a moderate level of transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and concise. No filler or repetition. The CCOE-specific detail is relevant and compactly stated.

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?

Given 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is relatively short. It covers the key CCOE-specific behavior but omits what the tool returns (no output schema), non-CCOE behavior, and how to use issueType vs issueTypeId. The schema covers parameters, but the description could provide more context for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that ccoe3F and ccoeType are shortcuts for required CCOE fields and that customFields provides full control. It also clarifies that defaults are auto-filled for CCOE projects. This enhances understanding of parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Create a new Jira issue with specified fields,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue, list_my_tasks, and add_comment. The addition of CCOE-specific context does not obscure the core purpose.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for creating Jira issues and offers guidance on using ccoe3F/ccoeType vs customFields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_issue for modifications) or mention exclusions. The guidance is more about parameter selection than tool selection.

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