create_issue_from_template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation trait is covered. The description adds some context about the structured fields format ('Section: value' separated by '|||') and optional instance, but doesn't disclose side effects, error conditions, or how templates interact with required fields. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds deep behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise parameter list. Every line adds information, though the Google-style Args block is slightly verbose without adding meaning beyond what a shorter list would.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations carry the basic mutation signal. The description covers parameter formats at a basic level but doesn't explain what the created issue returns, how template names map to actual templates, or what happens when fields are empty. This is adequate but has clear informational gaps.

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%, but the description itself briefly defines each parameter, including template allowed values and the fields delimiter. This compensates minimally; however, it doesn't explain project short-name format, template behavior, product, or instance semantics beyond one-line labels.

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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('a YouTrack issue using a predefined template'), and the parameter list distinguishes it from generic create_issue by emphasizing template and section values. It does not explicitly contrast it with create_issue, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by displaying a template field listing valid values and a fields format, but it doesn't state when to choose this instead of create_issue or other issue-creating siblings. No explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are given.

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