create_external_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly: preview mode returns a draft without creating (wouldCreate: false), idempotencyKey makes it safe to retry, and the tool returns a specific error code with a connect URL when the provider is not connected. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond simple write semantics.

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 information-dense without bloat. Every sentence adds value: purpose, required identifiers, preview behavior, idempotency, prerequisite call, and error-handling guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then logically expands into usage details.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential context: what the source is, how to discover target fields, what preview does, idempotency, and error behavior. There is no output schema, so the description partially explains return values (draft, error code). It could be slightly more explicit about the full success response shape, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that enriches parameter understanding, particularly source.type/source.id being required and resolved server-side into the issue draft, and the purpose of target being discoverable via get_integration_status. It doesn't rename or redefine every parameter, but it clarifies the relationships and usage of key fields enough to justify a score above baseline.

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 opens with an action verb and specific resource: "Files an issue in a connected provider (Jira, Linear, Asana, monday.com, GitHub) from a TestDino source entity." It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_external_issue and connect_integration by specifying the action (file/create) and the source context.

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 explicitly instructs when to use it: "Call get_integration_status first (with includeCreateOptions: true to discover the provider fields available for target)." It also provides guidance for a specific error case (INTEGRATION_NOT_CONNECTED) and tells the agent to show the URL to the user rather than opening it programmatically. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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