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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the permission requirement ('signed-in user may add work packages'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, required scope, or whether the created object is returned, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Single, short sentence with no waste. Front-loads the action and resource clearly.

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?

With a mutation tool that has annotations and an output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings and any prerequisites. It covers the permission prerequisite but leaves parameters undocumented, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'project' implicitly via 'in a project' and doesn't clarify field meanings like type_id, subject, or description. The schema does have types and required fields, but no human-readable semantics; the description barely helps.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a work package in a project'. Clear what it does and distinguishes from sibling read/update tools (openproject_get_work_package, openproject_update_work_package) by its 'Create' verb, though it doesn't refer to them explicitly.

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 phrase 'where the signed-in user may add work packages' implies a permission prerequisite, hinting at when it will succeed. But there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusions.

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