jira_create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It describes the markdown support for description and user mentioning behavior, but omits details such as validation of project_key or issuetype, authorization requirements, or error scenarios. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise: two paragraphs with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, discussing description format and user mentioning without redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks details on project_key requirements and issuetype options. For a creation tool operational context (e.g., required permissions, error handling) is missing, making completeness average.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates partly by explaining the description field's markdown and user mentioning. However, it does not explain project_key (e.g., format), summary, or acceptable issuetype values (only the default 'Task'). Parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 clearly states it creates a new Jira issue. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 provides explicit guidance on mentioning users, including a prerequisite call to jira_search_users and format details. It warns against ambiguous @username usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings for creation-related tasks.

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