jira_project_create_meta

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

Without annotations, the description discloses return format (YAML) and that option/select/cascading-select values are resolved, which is useful. It does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or that it likely makes multiple internal API calls, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 packed into four concise sentences covering function, recovery-loop collapse, return format, and CLI parity. No fluff, but it could be more structured with bullet points.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the per-field data returned ('required, schema_type, allowed values... default'). However, it doesn't describe the overall YAML structure, error cases, or edge cases (e.g., invalid project key), making it slightly incomplete for a no-output-schema tool.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Project key (e.g., PROJ)' and 'Issue type name (e.g., Task, Bug)'), and the description doesn't add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the output context. 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 clearly defines the tool as introspecting JIRA issue type create-screen fields, listing specific attributes (required, schema_type, allowed values, default). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_field_list and jira_field_options.

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 positions the tool as a pre-flight call that 'collapses the create→HTTP 400→jira_field_list→jira_field_options recovery loop,' implying use before issue creation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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