jira_create_issue

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses that the description parameter requires ADF and will be auto-wrapped if provided as a plain string, and that customFields need exact customfield_XXXXX IDs from the metadata tool. However, it does not mention the response structure or error behavior, which is a minor gap for a create operation.

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 a main sentence, a note about ADF format, and an IMPORTANT workflow callout. It contains no filler, and every sentence provides essential guidance. While somewhat lengthy due to the IMPORTANT section, the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, which is a notable omission. However, it thoroughly covers the critical input workflow from metadata discovery to ADF formatting, which is the most complex aspect of using this tool. The description is highly functional for a create operation, but could be complete with a note about the response (e.g., issue 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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the ADF auto-wrapping behavior for the description parameter and emphasizes that customFields must be discovered first via jira_get_create_issue_meta_fields, which enriches the semantic understanding of these parameters.

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 that the tool creates a new issue, task, bug, or custom asset issue in Jira Cloud, using the verb 'Creates' and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue, jira_search_jql, and jira_get_transitions, which all perform read or transition operations.

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 instructs that if custom fields are needed or unknown, the agent MUST first run jira_get_project_issue_types and jira_get_create_issue_meta_fields to discover the correct field IDs and required states. This provides a clear workflow and names the alternative tools to use, with an official API doc link for further reference.

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