start_work

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

Annotations already declare it non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that exactly one item is affected and that it targets the literal 'In Progress' status, plus an authorization caveat ('authorized'), but says nothing about failure when unauthorized or the effect on the Shared Core write path.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good, but the trailing clause 'using the same Shared Core write path' is internal jargon that adds no actionable meaning and does not earn its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and only annotations for safety, the description should carry more: it omits what the write returns, error/authorization behavior, and what the three identifiers mean. The definition is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% across three required parameters (owner, itemId, number), so the description must compensate and does not. It only vaguely implies 'a GitHub Project work item' without mapping any parameter to owner/itemId/number or giving formats.

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?

States a specific verb and target state ('Move one ... work item to the exact \'In Progress\' Status') on a concrete resource (GitHub Project work item). The purpose is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling update_github_project_item_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for starting work / marking an item In Progress. There is no explicit when-to-use vs update_github_project_item_status or update_work_item_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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