jira_create_issue

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and dynamic response (openWorldHint=true). Description adds a custom_fields example and reference to jira_list_fields, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like auth needs or side effects. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides a practical example. No filler, front-loads core action. Could include more structured sections but still efficient.

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 with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of default behavior beyond schema, error handling, or post-creation steps. 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 100%, so each parameter is already described. Description adds marginal value with a custom_fields example and tip to discover field IDs. This is slightly above baseline 3 but not enough to warrant 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 explicitly states 'Create a Jira issue', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_create_epic (creates a subtype) and jira_update_issue (update), making the purpose clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like jira_create_epic. The tip to use jira_list_fields for custom fields is helpful but not a usage guideline. Implied usage is common creation, but no exclusions are given.

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