create_issue_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'create a saved report' is consistent with that non-read-only, non-destructive profile. It adds the mutual-exclusion rule but says nothing about permissions, quota, or whether re-creating an existing report overwrites anything.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the critical source-selection rule front-loaded.

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 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers source selection but not the sorts/fields/format or expected return. It is adequate but leaves gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the one-of constraint across query/filter/filterId that the schema does not encode via anyOf/oneOf. That is meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields, though it leaves sorts/fields/format wholly to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a saved issue-list report') and ties it to its consumer context ('used by dashboard "issue list" widgets'), which separates it from the many queue/board/widget siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with find_issue_reports, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives one actionable usage rule—choose exactly one issue source among query | filter | filterId—which is real guidance, but it offers no when-to-use/when-not context versus alternatives like find_issue_reports or create_filter. It is also ambiguous about placement, saying the source goes 'inside parameters.filter' while query/filter/filterId are top-level schema properties.

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