jira_create

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

The description discloses that description text is plain text wrapped in ADF, a behavioral detail. However, it does not reveal permissions needed, idempotency, side effects, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of comprehensive transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a concise opening sentence, a bullet list of resource_type options, and two concrete examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the most common use cases and resource types, but omits explanations for parameters like extra_fields, parent_key, and component_lead. No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe return values, leaving gaps for complex scenarios.

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?

With 87% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the resource_type enum options and showing a complete issue creation example, which clarifies how parameters like project_key, summary, and priority should be used together.

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 'Create any Jira resource' and enumerates specific resource types (issue, comment, subtask, component, version) with examples, making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like jira_read or jira_update.

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 guidance on resource_type options and usage patterns via examples (issue and comment), but does not explicitly exclude cases when to use alternative creation tools like jira_create_group. However, the listed resource types implicitly define the scope.

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