create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states that an issue is created and lists required fields. It does not disclose that this is a state-changing operation with persistent side effects, that repeated calls create duplicate issues, or what the tool returns (e.g., created issue key). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the purpose statement comes first and the requirement note second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

This is a 9-parameter creation tool with nested objects (customFields, labels), no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only two sentences. An agent cannot learn the return value, how parentKey/customFields behavior is scoped, or what permissions are needed — the schema alone does not cover these. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, and every parameter is individually documented with examples (priority values, issueType examples, ADF auto-conversion for description, customFields sample). The description's only parameter information — which fields are required — duplicates the schema's required array and adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('새 이슈를 생성합니다' / creates a new issue) and adds the required-field constraint (project key, issue type, summary), which is useful. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_issue or transition_issue, and the main clause largely restates the tool name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_issue, update_issue, transition_issue, or other siblings. Usage context is only implied by the word 'create' — there is no mention of when creating is preferred over updating or transitioning an existing issue. An agent choosing between these sibling tools gets no routing help beyond the tool name.

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