Create Paperclip issue

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that it returns only a compact acknowledgement and intentionally does not inject the full created issue response into model context. This is a meaningful, non-obvious behavior. The description does not contradict the openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action leads, and the important response behavior follows. Every sentence earns its place by either stating the tool's function or disclosing a critical output constraint.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is too thin to be complete. It clarifies the return behavior, but does not explain the semantics of the many optional fields, expected value formats for status/priority, or how relationships like parent_id, project_id, and blocked_by_issue_ids interact. An agent has to infer a lot from parameter names alone.

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 8%, with just the 'extra' parameter explained in the schema, and the description itself provides no parameter-level guidance. Names like title, status, priority, parent_id, and blocked_by_issue_ids are somewhat self-explanatory, but fields like extra, goal_id, label_ids, and assignee_agent_id lack sufficient semantic detail. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Create an issue/subtask in authoritative Paperclip state.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and object, and the imperative 'Create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like paperclip_issue_update, paperclip_issue_release, and paperclip_issue_checkout.

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 implies usage through the verb 'Create,' so an agent can infer it should be used when creating an issue or subtask. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or name alternatives such as paperclip_issue_update for modifications. Usage context is clear but relies on inference.

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