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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word "durable" hints at persistence, but there is no mention of required permissions, what happens if the same requestId is replayed, what the call returns, or how this interacts with work_claim/work_update — substantial gaps for a mutating creation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the usage condition. No filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, a nested metadata object, and no output schema or annotations. The description omits required parameters, return behavior, and idempotency, leaving an agent under-informed despite an accurate one-line purpose.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description addresses none of them. "For another agent" loosely implies agentId, but required fields (title, objective), dueAt, requestId, capability, and metadata are left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a durable work item") and adds scope ("for another agent or for later continuation"). It distinguishes the creation action from sibling lifecycle tools like work_claim and work_update, though it never names 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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: "Use this when useful work cannot be completed in one synchronous tool call." That is a genuine when-to-use rule, but no when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., doing the work inline instead) are offered.

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