create_issue

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

Annotations already cover idempotency (true) and destructive (false), but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't mention side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior. The pointer to GET /schema is about parameters, not behavior. No contradiction, but minimal added value.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: starts with 'Create new issue' followed by the API endpoint and a concise parameter hint. No fluff, though it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 creation tool with a generic body and an output schema present, the description fails to mention the return value or any prerequisites. Relying on the agent to fetch the schema independently is a significant gap, making the tool incomplete for safe and correct use.

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 a single body parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description correctly identifies it as a request payload and directs to GET or /schema for field details. This gives agents a workaround but doesn't provide concrete field names or types, leaving the actual semantics to be discovered elsewhere.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Create new issue') and is easily distinguished from other write operations by its name. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling create_issue_* variants, the purpose is unambiguous for an agent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_issue_by_issue_id_by_status or create_issue_by_issue_id_comment). The only instruction is to read the GET or /schema endpoint for body structure, which is not about selection.

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