create_issue

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

Annotations are sparse (only `openWorldHint`), so the description carries the burden. It states that the operation 'creates remote project data', requires permission, and lists error types (validation, permission, duplicate-related). This goes beyond what the schema or annotations reveal, giving the agent realistic expectations. It could mention reversibility or idempotency, but for a create operation, this is sufficient context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Create a new issue.'), followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every word earns its place; no filler. The structure makes it easy to scan and act on.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, all schema-documented) and absence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the action, when to use it (vs. alternatives), a permission prerequisite, and the possible error modes. There is no missing piece that would prevent correct invocation.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3. It does not reference any parameter by name, so it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with the crisp statement 'Create a new issue.' and immediately differentiates it from `update_issue` and `create_issue_note` by naming them. The verb-resource pair is exact, and the sibling contrast removes any ambiguity about which tool does what.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to open a new issue; use `update_issue` for an existing issue and `create_issue_note` to add discussion without changing issue fields.' This is a clear when-to-use with named alternatives and the condition that selects each. No inference is required.

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