jira_project_create_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return format (YAML) and fields (required, schema_type, allowed values). It is clearly a read-only introspection, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or that it only queries. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not maximally clear.

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?

Three sentences that are dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: explains what it returns, how it simplifies a workflow, and the output format. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: required, schema_type, allowed values, defaults, and YAML format. It also mentions resolving cascading selects. Given the simplicity of the 2-parameter input, this is comprehensive.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'project key' vs 'Project key (e.g., PROJ)'). It focuses on output rather than parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Introspect which fields a JIRA issue type needs' using a specific verb ('introspect') and resource ('fields'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_field_list and jira_field_options by stating it collapses their multi-step loop into one call.

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 implies when to use: before creating a JIRA issue, to know required fields. It explains it replaces a manual recovery loop. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling tools.

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