jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that description text is converted to ADF, and provides project-specific constraints (e.g., CAKE issues are Feature-type epics only). These details go beyond a simple 'create' statement, though it does not address permissions, return values, or error handling.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, conversion/linking guidance, and project-specific rules. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the 9-parameter schema with strong coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage by covering the key decision points (linking and project rules). It omits explicit return-value/error details, but these are less critical for a create operation with no output schema.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance by explaining when to use epicKey (company-managed) vs parentKey (team-managed or sub-task grouping) and by mapping projectKey/issueType to specific projects (NUTLA for stories/defects, CAKE for feature epics). This clarifies decision-making beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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?

The description starts with 'Create a new Jira issue', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue, jira_search, and jira_add_comment. It further clarifies the tool's scope by explaining epic/parent linking and project-specific issue types.

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 offers clear context on when to use epicKey vs parentKey based on project management style, and specifies that Stories/defects go in NUTLA while CAKE is for Feature epics only. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the create-only purpose is implicit from the name.

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