Create Issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost nothing: it does not say which fields are required (project_id, subject), that watchers may be notified, whether defaults apply to omitted fields, or what the response returns. It only implies a write operation and project scoping.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy. It is appropriately sized only in the sense that it wastes no words.

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 15-parameter creation tool with no annotations, near-zero schema coverage and no textual help, the description is far too thin. Even with an output schema present, an agent needs required-field, defaults and enum/ID semantics that are entirely absent.

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?

Of 15 parameters, only done_ratio carries a schema description (7% coverage), and the description adds no explanation of any parameter. Critical fields like tracker_id, status_id, priority_id, custom_fields and watcher_user_ids are undocumented in both places, so the agent has no way to know what values are valid.

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 (Create) and resource (issue) plus its scope (in a project), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like update_issue or create_project, relying on the name alone for differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_issue or create_project, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent gets only the implied 'use this to make a new issue and not to modify one'.

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