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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation detail: the created Work starts in 'planned' state, begin_work transitions it, and workflow-run ruleset validation can refuse the write. This is rich, actionable behavioral 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?

Efficient and front-loaded: creation is stated first, then state lifecycle, then validation rules. Two sentences, no wasted words.

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 annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, the description completes the picture with lifecycle and validation context. It is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though it could more explicitly route away from sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states it creates a Work in a Batch, and adds useful nuance ('that is not ready', 'always starts planned'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling begin_work or update_work beyond mentioning begin_work starts it.

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?

Implies usage by mentioning begin_work as the follow-up step, but does not explicitly state when to use create_work vs. alternatives like update_work or search_works. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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