create_issue

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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by detailing the return of the full Issue object (number, URL, metadata) and the label resolution behavior, including clean failure with valid names. This goes beyond annotations but could also mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications) hinted by openWorldHint.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a third explaining label behavior. No wasted words, essential information front-loaded with purpose, then return details, then parameter-specific nuance. Ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

With 7 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. It covers creation, return value, and label resolution. However, it does not mention that owner and repo must exist, or that assignees must be valid users (though schema infers this). The openWorldHint suggests side effects like notifications, which are unaddressed.

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 descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining label name resolution to IDs and the error behavior on unknown labels. It also clarifies the return value structure including number, URL, and metadata.

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 Gitea repository.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue (modify) or get_issue (read).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no guidance on use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer other tools like add_comment or list_issues. The purpose is clear, but usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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