create_issue_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds only the admin requirement; it says nothing about whether re-creating with an existing id fails, what side effects occur on existing issues, or any rate/scope limits for an 11-parameter creation tool.

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 sentences that front-load the action and then spend the rest on the highest-uncertainty parameter. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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 an 11-parameter admin creation tool with no output schema and 55% schema coverage, the description covers the trickiest parameter but leaves half the surface (visibility flags, ordering, readonly, description) unexplained. Minimum viable rather than 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 only 55%, and the description compensates well for the critical `type` parameter by enumerating valid class names and the container=true variant, which the schema only gestures at with a wildcard. However, order, hidden, visible, readonly, and description remain 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a global issue field") and flags the admin privilege needed. It distinguishes global fields by implication from the local-field siblings (create_queue_local_field), though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the parenthetical "(admin)", which hints at a permission prerequisite but is not elaborated. No guidance on when to use this versus create_queue_local_field, create_issue_field_category, or update_issue_field, and no prerequisites or duplicate-handling notes.

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