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 for a write/mutation tool. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens on duplicate titles, how milestone resolution failures are surfaced, or what the response returns. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical 'by title or ID', which is thin.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the core action plus supported facets are front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing needs removing.

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?

The schema is rich and fully annotated, and required fields (project_id, title, confidential) are marked there, so parameter-level completeness is adequate. However, for a nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies no behavioral or usage context, leaving a real gap for safe invocation.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including the labels string-or-array flexibility and the milestone_id/milestone_title split. The description restates a subset of these fields (milestone, labels, assignees, due date) without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a new issue') and enumerates the optional facets it supports (milestone, labels, assignees, due date), which distinguishes it from create_issue_note, create_issue_link, and update_issue. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead in ambiguous cases.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project access, whether the project must already exist), and no contrast with the sibling create_issue_link/create_issue_note tools. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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