create_work_item_property

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool creates something. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains scope resolution, parameter dependencies (e.g., relation_type required for RELATION), and return type ('Returns Created WorkItemProperty object'). No contradictions with annotations. It does not mention side effects like idempotency (idempotentHint=false), but that is acceptable.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, scope resolution in bullet-like format, and a parameter list. It is fairly long but every sentence adds value given the complexity (15 parameters, scope resolution). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient for the information density.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, scope variations, multiple property types), the description covers essential aspects: scope resolution, parameter dependencies, required combinations, and return type. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further. It is complete enough for correct agent usage, though error conditions or rate limits are not mentioned.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It provides detailed explanations for all 15 parameters, including type options (e.g., property_type enum values), structure (e.g., settings JSON format, options list of dicts), and usage constraints (e.g., relation_type required when property_type=RELATION). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new work item property.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like update, delete, list, retrieve by focusing on creation. The scope resolution section further clarifies the purpose by detailing how the property is scoped (type-scoped, project-level, workspace-level), which differentiates it from others.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use which parameters (e.g., omit work_item_type_id for project-level, relation_type required for RELATION type). It also explains required conditions for parameters like settings for TEXT/DATETIME. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling context and clear scope resolution serve as implicit guidance.

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