github_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a write operation. It says nothing about required permissions, whether creating an issue triggers notifications or webhooks, what happens with duplicate titles, or what the response contains.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient with no wasted clauses, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confirm auth requirements, required fields beyond the schema's single 'required' entry, or what is returned on success.

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% across 5 parameters. The description only obliquely covers repo/owner via 'in a GitHub repository' and says nothing about title being required, the role of body, or label semantics and format (names vs IDs). Four of five parameters remain 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 a new issue in a GitHub repository.' An agent can distinguish this from the sibling read tools (github_list_issues, github_list_pull_requests) by the verb alone, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this instead of github_list_issues or other siblings, and states no prerequisites such as authentication, required scopes, or whether the target repository must already exist. The agent must infer all preconditions.

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