create_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only adds format constraints for color and due_on, but does not mention required permissions, failure modes, side effects, or whether the epic appears immediately. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 sentences with no filler; the format hints are directly useful. Well front-loaded with the action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters and zero annotations. The description does not explain the relationship between fields, how to obtain project_id, or the purpose of label_ids/track_cards. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

The description covers only color and due_on formats for 2 of 8 parameters, leaving title, project_id, description, label_ids, assignee_id, and track_cards with only schema types and no semantic guidance. This does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' and resource 'epic' in a project, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling update_epic by implying creation vs modification, though it doesn't elaborate on epic-specific context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs create_ticket or other creation tools, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. The description only states the action without contextual direction.

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