jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains validation before sending, dryRun behavior, custom field flexibility, assignee formats, and estimate format. Lacks explicit mention of return value or rate limits, but sufficient for a create 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?

The description is moderately long but efficient, with logical flow. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 12 params and nested objects, the description covers validation, dryRun, parameter specifics, and references sibling tool for field lookup. Lacks explicit return value, but overall complete enough.

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%, but description adds value by explaining custom fields by name/ID, assignee accepts email/name/accountId, estimate format examples, and parent required for subtasks.

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 it creates a Jira issue, validates against real schema, and mentions dryRun. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_update_issue and jira_get_issue.

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 recommends consulting jira_issue_fields beforehand and explains the dryRun option for testing. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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