Create issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about validating fields via meta and passing customFields with an example. Still, it does not disclose the return value, required permissions, or error/validation behavior for a side-effecting create operation.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the prerequisite lookup is stated, and the customFields nuance is illustrated. Every sentence contributes.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description plus 92% schema coverage provides a workable call path: use meta for valid values, pass required fields from schema, and add extras via customFields. It could mention the response body or auth requirements, but those are not necessary for selecting and constructing the call.

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 high (92%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining customFields as a way to pass extra fields with a concrete example, and by pointing to get_issue_create_meta for valid values of the required parameters.

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 'Create a new issue,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from issue mutations like update_issue or delete_issue, though it does not explicitly discuss sibling alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: call get_issue_create_meta first to discover valid projects, issue types, and required fields. It does not list exclusions or say when not to use create_issue in favor of an alternative.

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