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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires project_id and subject' which hints at prerequisites, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or whether this is a destructive/mutative operation beyond the obvious 'Create' implication.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists parameter requirements. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or provide enough parameter semantics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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. It lists all 6 parameters and indicates which are required vs. optional, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., what priority_id values represent, format expectations beyond due_date pattern) or provide examples, leaving gaps in semantic understanding.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue in Lychee Redmine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_issue' beyond the obvious create vs. update distinction, which prevents a perfect score.

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 basic context by listing required and optional parameters, which implies when to use it (when you have project_id and subject). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_issue' for modifying existing issues, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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