create_epic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the useful WRITE_ENABLED=true gating requirement, which is not in the structured annotations. However, it does not disclose what is returned, side effects, or whether the created epic is immediately visible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The prerequisite is placed in parentheses, which keeps the core action prominent while still surfacing the constraint.

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 creation tool with five parameters, full schema coverage, and useful annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and the key environmental constraint, but it omits what happens on success (e.g., whether a sys_id or record is returned) and any side effects, which would help an agent invoke it correctly in a mutation workflow.

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 five parameters (including the required short_description) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new epic'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_epics or update_epic. It does not elaborate on what an epic is or how it fits into the scrum hierarchy, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which tells the agent about an environmental gate but not when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_epic or create_story. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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