op_create_work_package

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds the useful fact that notifications are disabled by default unless notify=true, and that the created id is returned. It doesn't overclaim or contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose, return value + notification behavior, and usage context. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 16-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the schema plus this description is sufficient: required fields, defaults, and value formats are in the schema, while the description supplies the missing result (created id) and default notification behavior. The tracked-project prerequisite supplies the 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?

With 94% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters in detail, so the description carries no extra parameter burden. It only reinforces the notify default already present in the 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?

States a specific action and resource — 'Create a work package' — and notes the return value. The prerequisite sentence ('Every change to a tracked project needs one of these before work starts') distinguishes creation from the update/comment siblings, so an agent can identify the right verb.

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?

Says creation must precede changes to tracked projects, giving a concrete condition for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly state that existing packages should go to op_update_work_package, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than named.

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