create_project_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value, the auto-increment behavior, and prerequisites. It does not mention error behavior, idempotency, or any side effects beyond creation, but given the detail level and the fact that it covers the key behavioral aspects, it is strong though not exhaustive.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a justification sentence, prerequisites, and a bulleted Args list. It is dense with essential information, avoiding fluff. The Args list is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, so every line earns its place.

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 13 parameters, the description covers all necessary invocation details: prerequisites, parameter semantics, allowed values, and cross-references to sibling tools. It also provides the output format. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may cover return fields, so the description does not need to repeat that. For the complexity involved, this is complete.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides an Args section that explains every parameter, including allowed values (priority, severity), formats (dates), and cross-references (custom_fields uses list_project_issue_types). It even gives an example for custom_fields. This adds immense value beyond the sparse schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb (create), resource (ticket within a project), and gives the output format (display id like 'KEY-NNN'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket (global) and list_project_tickets by specifying the project-scoped nature of the operation.

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?

Explicitly calls this 'the recommended path for most ticket creation' and explains why (auto-increment per-project number, human-friendly display id). It lists prerequisites (project_id from list_projects, issue_type_id from list_project_issue_types) and references the specific sibling tools needed to obtain them, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to use it.

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