Create an issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the HTTP method and auth class. It does not clarify side effects, return value, or any non-obvious behavior.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point. While concise, it omits useful structure like a summary of key parameters or use cases. It is decent but not optimally formatted for quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (many nested parameters, required fields), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention the mandatory 'title' and 'status' fields, and offers no overview of the issue creation process or returned data. Output schema exists but description ignores it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., body.title, status, etc.). The schema itself is self-documenting but the omission of parameter guidance is a significant gap.

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 'Create an issue' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like pc_post_issues_by_id_children (create child issue) or pc_post_issues_by_id_interactions. The company-specific scope is implied by the path but not emphasized.

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 provides an authorization class (board_or_agent) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related tools, or context for selecting this operation.

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