Create Jira Issue

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a write operation), the description discloses authentication requirements (JIRA_EMAIL, JIRA_API_TOKEN), permission needs (403 error), and validation behavior (422). It also details return formats for both markdown and JSON, adding valuable context not present in annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence contributing actionable information. Front-loads the main purpose.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values for both formats. It covers prerequisites, error scenarios, and examples, making it complete for a creation tool with robust annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples and clarifies that issue_type can be a name or numeric ID, reinforcing schema info with practical usage. Error handling explanations further enrich parameter context, justifying a 4.

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 opens with 'Create a new Jira issue in a project,' clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool jira_list_issue_types by focusing on creation, not listing.

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?

Explicitly directs users to jira_list_issue_types for discovering valid issue types, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. Error handling section also helps users know what to do in failure scenarios.

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