Create epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a non-obvious requirement: the 'Epic Name' custom field may be required on company-managed projects and must be supplied via customFields. It also names the metadata tools to call first. It does not cover return values or permissions, but the key hidden behavior is addressed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides an important caveat and a concrete follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it identifies the core gotcha around company-managed projects and provides the resolution path. It stops short of describing what the response contains or addressing other edge cases, but the schema already covers parameter details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why customFields matters, giving the 'Epic Name' example, and connecting it to get_epic_meta and get_issue_create_meta. This is contextual information not inferable from individual parameter descriptions alone.

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 an epic in a project.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sprint or board operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_issue or move_issue_to_epic, but the epic-specific wording makes the target 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 description gives clear contextual guidance by noting that company-managed projects usually require the 'Epic Name' custom field and instructs the agent to call get_epic_meta or get_issue_create_meta first. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer create_epic over create_issue or when not to use the tool, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable.

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