create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the main side effects: creating the issue, optionally adding it as a card, and attaching milestone/labels/assignees. However, it says nothing about the return value, failure behavior (e.g., invalid project_id), or whether placement on the board has any other consequences.

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 compact sections with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is a tight list where each line adds distinct value for an optional parameter.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and optional attributes but omits the return format (what the created issue yields) and any integration hints for resolving label/project/assignee ids against sibling list tools. It is serviceable but leaves meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, and the description compensates for 4 of 8 parameters: project_id ('added to that project as a card'), milestone_id, label_ids, and assignee_ids. But the required params (owner, repo, title) and body have no semantic explanation, and 'Optional numeric ids' for labels/assignees is thin—it doesn't say what the ids reference or how to obtain them.

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 opening sentence 'Create an issue, optionally placing it directly on a project board' names a specific verb and resource, and the board-placement clause adds a distinguishing behavior. Against a sibling set containing delete_issue, create_project, create_milestone, and create_column, an agent can immediately tell which resource this acts on.

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 is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The sibling add_issues_to_project likely handles board placement for existing issues, but the description never routes between the two, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist before project_id can be used).

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