jira_create_epic

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

The description discloses the automatic issue type setting, a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context, though could mention more about side effects.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero waste, each performing a distinct informative function: stating the action and noting an automatic behavior.

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 description covers the core purpose and key behavioral trait. With a rich input schema and an output schema present, it is mostly complete, though it could mention prerequisites like valid project_key.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond indicating the epic type, achieving the baseline for 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 'Create a Jira epic' with the specific verb 'create' and resource 'epic', and adds the key detail that it automatically sets the issue type to Epic, distinguishing it from siblings like jira_create_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 implies usage for creating epics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_create_issue for other issue types) or exclusion conditions.

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