create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only restates the mutation ('create a new issue') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, return behavior, or how the target project is determined. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action efficiently and nothing in it is wasted.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is not enough for an agent to fully understand behavior or expected results. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the description omits return values, project resolution, and operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level nuance, but because the schema carries the full load, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a new issue in a GitLab project.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like create_issue_note, update_issue, and delete_issue, since it is explicitly about creating a brand-new 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_issue or create_issue_note. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions are mentioned; the only usage signal is the implied meaning of 'create.'

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