wrike_create_custom_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create', implying a mutation, but fails to mention what happens on success, error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects like modifying a workflow. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful detail. It is not bloated, but it under-specifies; a single sentence that adds no new information is only marginally useful.

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 is too minimal for a create operation with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, required context like workflow existence, or how groups are used. The schema covers parameters, but not the operational context an agent would need to safely invoke the tool.

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 provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool name hints that the 'name', 'group', and 'workflowId' are key, but the schema already documents required fields.

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 a new custom status' clearly states a specific action (create) and resource (custom status), which is enough to understand the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_custom_status' and 'get_custom_status', though it doesn't elaborate on what a 'custom status' is.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a workflow or custom field. The only cue is the tool name's resource, implying you'd use it for creating custom statuses, but it lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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