create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states only the action 'create a new issue' without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure.

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 structured with a summary line, a brief note on `command`, and a labeled Args list. It is not overly verbose, though the Args list largely repeats parameter names. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers input but omits return information (e.g., created issue ID). It also lacks prerequisites like project existence or permissions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description adds critical meaning. It explains `command` with an example, labels `product` and `instance` as optional, and describes `project`, `summary`, `description` with brief but helpful context. It compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 issue in a YouTrack project' – a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_issue or delete_issue.

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 mentions using `command` for custom fields but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_issue_from_template or add_comment. The context is implied but not differentiated.

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