Create bounded project work

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the assignment is 'durable' and has 'hard ceilings' on steps/time/spend, implying enforcement. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only, and there is no contradiction. It could go further by explaining consequences of exceeding ceilings.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the verb and key differentiators. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description provides a high-level purpose but doesn't cover important operational aspects such as idempotency behavior (beyond the annotation), error scenarios, or validation details. Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (10 parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 must compensate. It mentions acceptance criteria and ceilings (mapping to acceptance_criteria, max_steps, max_minutes, max_spend_cents), but doesn't explain other parameters like idempotency_key, due_at, priority, project_id, title, or brief. This leaves 6 of 10 parameters without semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (assignment/project work), and specific characteristics (durable, bounded by ceilings). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools and from other work assignment actions like claiming or submitting.

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 description implies usage when you want to create a bounded assignment, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools like claim_work_assignment or list_work_assignments. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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