create_issue

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about using the command parameter to set required custom fields at creation time, which is a behavioral nuance beyond schema annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a single purposeful tip about command, and a well-organized Args list. Every sentence carries necessary information with no redundancy or filler.

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 creation tool, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and the special behavior of the command parameter. Output schema exists, so return values are not missing. It does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., project existence) or side effects, but annotations and schema cover the remaining critical context. Slight room for improvement in noting when a template might be preferred.

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%, yet the description provides concise explanations for every parameter (project, summary, description, product, command, instance) and gives an example for command. This fully compensates for the schema gap and greatly aids correct invocation.

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', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from update_issue and transition_issue by focusing on creation. The additional note about using the command for custom fields reinforces the creation-time behavior.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Create' and the target resource. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_issue_from_template when a template should be used, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Thus the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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