create_work_package

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency implications, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether it returns the created entity).

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?

The description is extremely terse but not concise in a helpful way—it is redundant with the tool name and provides zero information. This is under-specification rather than effective brevity, similar to the 'Process' example.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a work package is, how it relates to projects, or what the caller should expect as a return value. The schema descriptions help, but the tool description itself fails to provide essential operational context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but all properties already have adequate descriptions in the schema, so no compensation is needed.

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 'Create work package' is a tautology—it simply restates the tool name with a space inserted. It provides no additional detail about what a work package is or how this tool differs from siblings like update_work_package or create_project.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or required parameters (e.g., project_id). There is no context about the intended workflow or constraints such as 'must be associated with an existing project.'

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