create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create action and required fields, without mentioning side effects, permissions, response/output, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the essential requirement in parentheses. There is no redundant wording, and the structure is easy to scan.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is not enough context. It omits return behavior, parameter value guidance, and any caveats about creating an issue, so an agent may not call it with full confidence.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates only by restating that project_id and subject are required. It adds no meaning for status_id, tracker_id, priority_id, assigned_to_id, or description beyond their field names, so several parameters remain underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'チケットを新規作成する' (create a new ticket), and explicitly names the two required parameters. This clearly distinguishes creation from sibling read tools (get_issue, list_issues) and update_issue.

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 phrase '新規作成する' gives clear context that this tool is for creating a new ticket, contrasted with the siblings get/list/update. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the action is unambiguous enough to route an agent.

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