Save issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses limited return fields (`{id, identifier, state, url}`) and server-side resolution of id-or-name arguments. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or reversibility of the mutation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core create/update behavior and return format. The second sentence efficiently covers parameter resolution and requirements. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 11 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key logic (create/update, return fields, id-or-name resolution, required on create). It lacks details on error cases or defaults, but is sufficient for agent invocation.

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 value by explaining create vs update logic, required parameters on create (`title`, `team`), and server-side resolution for id-or-name arguments. This clarifies parameter interaction beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 (no `id`) or update (`id`) an issue', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling CRUD tools by describing a combined create/update operation for issues.

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 explicitly says when to create vs update based on the `id` parameter. It also notes that create requires `title` and `team`. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for listing or reading issues.

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