jira_issue_create_tool

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

Annotations are missing, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs automatic custom field validation based on project schema, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention mutation side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or output behavior (output schema exists but unmentioned). The description provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second explains the automatic validation feature. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, including custom_fields), and that annotations are absent, the description covers the custom field validation aspect but omits usage guidance, output description, and prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not referenced. A more complete description would include when to use and what the return value contains.

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 (89%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that custom_fields are automatically validated based on project schema, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'additionalProperties: true' definition. Other parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description's extra context improves understanding of the custom_fields parameter.

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 'Create a new Jira issue' which specifies the verb and resource. It also mentions 'automatic custom field validation' distinguishing it from related tools like jira_issue_update_tool that modify existing issues. The verb 'create' and resource 'Jira issue' are 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 implies usage when a new issue needs to be created, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist (e.g., required permissions). Sibling tools like jira_issue_update_tool are not mentioned as alternatives.

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