create_queue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating-but-safe profile is already covered. The description adds that a specific required payload is needed, but omits side effects (e.g., does creating a queue also spawn a board or default workflow?), uniqueness constraints on key, and permission requirements.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the required-field roster following; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately short, though it could have used the second sentence for routing rather than restating required fields.

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 six-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it never says who can call it, what happens on key collision, or what side effects accompany queue creation.

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 100% and the nested issueTypesConfig has per-field descriptions, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's phrase 'issueTypesConfig array binding issue types to workflow templates' is a useful summary but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema states.

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 queue') and enumerates the required inputs, so the agent immediately knows what is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling create_queue_* tools (autoaction, local_field, trigger, macro), which share the same noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite ~15 sibling tools whose names start with create_queue. The agent must infer placement from context alone.

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