create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces the mutation («Изменяет данные в Трекере») and, more valuably, adds a confirmation-with-user requirement that annotations do not convey. This extra behavioral context is genuinely helpful, though no permission or side-effect details are given.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. Every clause carries information—the mutation warning and the confirmation requirement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description documents only 2 parameters and omits guidance on priority, assignee, issue_type, and the free-form fields object.

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 0% with 7 parameters, so the schema provides no semantics. The description names only «название» and «очередь» (summary and queue), leaving fields, assignee, priority, issue_type, and description completely undocumented in both places.

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?

«Создать задачу» states a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from siblings like update_issue, get_issue, and search_issues. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name or contrast against an alternative tool.

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 sentence «перед вызовом подтвердите название и очередь с пользователем» gives a concrete pre-call condition, which is useful guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as update_issue, so usage is only partially covered.

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