create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the mandatory queue field and that text fields accept Yandex Flavored Markdown. It says nothing about permissions, queue-level required fields, or what happens to nested extraFields.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and constraints follow. The Markdown sentence is the weakest earner but still useful information an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 22-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits any hint about the escaped-hatch extraFields/update-command mechanism, attachment handling, or the queue-vs-summary required-field discrepancy. The rich schema and annotations carry most of the load, leaving this merely adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 22 parameters, including the complex nested extraFields object. The description's only addition is generalizing YFM support to all text fields (the schema only says this for 'description'), which is a marginal gain over structured data.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue in Yandex Tracker'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_issue, bulk_update_issues, and import_issue. It does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 notes prerequisites ('Requires queue key and summary') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for related operations (edit_issue, import_issue, create_entity), and no exclusions. Note that 'summary' is stated as required here while the schema's required list contains only 'queue'.

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