import_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: it requires admin privileges and is scoped to migration, implying the custom-author/backdated fields are the point of the call. It still says nothing about duplicate keys, idempotency, or failure modes for a 25-parameter write.

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 short sentences, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. The admin/migration caveat comes before the action, which is the right priority order.

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 25-property mutation tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits handling of most optional migration fields, key-collision behavior, and the response, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 40% across 25 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate. It only hints at createdAt/createdBy ('custom author and creation date'), leaving fields like key, unique, resolution, status, and type undocumented in both schema and description.

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 an issue') plus the two defining traits ('custom author and creation date') that separate it from the sibling create_issue. An agent can route between import_issue and create_issue without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit restricted-use condition: 'Use only when migrating from another tracker.' This is clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly excludes normal issue creation, but it never names the obvious alternative (create_issue) for non-migration cases.

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