epics-create

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Create', implying a write operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether it creates a default workflow state).

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 extremely concise at 5 words, front-loading the core purpose. While it could include more context, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to scan.

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 simplicity of a creation tool and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like return value (epic ID?) or confirmation of success, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 input schema fully describes all 4 parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 epic with the verb 'Create' and resource 'epic'. It is straightforward, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like epics-update or epics-create-comment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites like required team membership or that an epic must be created before adding stories.

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