create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the issue is attributed to the authenticated user in the audit log and requires write permission. This goes beyond the basic creation action. It could mention more side effects, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and adds important context efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 4 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and a simple create action, the description is sufficient. It covers permissions, usage context, and parameter nuances. It lacks return value details but that's acceptable for a tool that likely returns the created object in a standard way.

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 extra meaning: 'body' uses GitHub-flavored markdown, 'repo' format is 'owner/name', 'title' should be concise/action-oriented, and 'labels' are optional and must exist. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with 'Create a new issue in a GitHub repository.' and explicitly lists use cases ('file a bug, request a feature, or track a task'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'add_comment' and 'list_issues' by focusing on creation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user wants to file a bug...') and states the required permission ('Requires repo write permission...'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose and sibling context make it clear.

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