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 states this is a creation operation (implying mutation/write), mentions the return values (issue key, ID, URL), and provides some context about subtask creation. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second mentions return values, and the third provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some usage context, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens on failure. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only mentions that 'issueType' values can be found via 'get_issue_types' and that 'parent' is required for subtasks, which are already covered in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Jira issue'), specifies the types of issues that can be created (Bug, Story, Task, Epic, etc.), and distinguishes subtask creation. It differentiates from siblings like 'update_issue' by focusing on creation rather than modification.

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 for when to use this tool (creating issues or subtasks) and references sibling tools like 'get_issue_types' and 'get_projects' for prerequisite information. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'update_issue' for modifications) or mention alternatives for similar operations.

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