jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful non-obvious behaviors (default unassigned assignee, markdown auto-converted to ADF), but omits permission requirements, error/failure behavior, and what happens when fields like priority or labels are invalid.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, default-behavior second, hard requirement last. Every sentence earns its place and the constraint is front-loaded.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers required inputs and default assignment but leaves gaps around permission requirements, failure modes, and confirmation of what is created. Adequate but not complete.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema (including markdown formatting rules and the assignee-cloning caveat). The description only restates the required-description requirement, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields; 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 (Create) and resource (Jira issue) plus concrete issue types (Story, Bug, Task), scoped to a project. This is easily distinguishable from the write-sibling jira_update_issue by verb, but it never explicitly names an alternative, which is what a 5 would require.

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 gives one behavioral hint about when to omit assignee ('New issues are created unassigned by default' and the cloning caveat), which implies how to call it, but it never states when to use this tool versus jira_update_issue or jira_search. Usage is only implied.

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