jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that user approval is required, but says nothing about what is created, whether it can be undone, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the approval note could have been paired with a bit more context without losing tightness.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is very thin: no post-creation behavior, no coverage of required fields, and no return expectations. Annotations cover safety only, leaving a real completeness gap.

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 only 67%, below the threshold where the schema can carry the burden alone, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The required fields (project_key, summary, reason) and their format expectations are left entirely to 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?

'Create a new Jira issue' states a clear verb+resource, which is easy to distinguish from update/transition siblings. However, it does not name a sibling or scope what is being created (fields, defaults), 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?

The only guidance is 'Requires user approval,' which is a procedural constraint, not when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g. jira_update_issue for existing issues) or the conditions that select this tool.

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