create_issue

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

Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. Annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating potential side effects, but the description does not address side effects, permissions, or reversibility. No destructiveHint or readOnlyHint provided, leaving the agent uninformed.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, every word earns its place. Extremely concise.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is insufficient. Key missing context: return value, error handling, and proper usage constraints beyond the schema.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are already clear and detailed.

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 'Create a new issue' is a clear verb+resource pair, distinguishing it from other issue-related tools like update_issue or delete_issue. However, it lacks explicit scope like 'in a project', though the required project_id parameter implies it.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or when not to use it. The description provides no context for selection among siblings.

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