ado_workitems_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing the required PAT scope ('Requires vso.work_write PAT scope') and the return behavior ('Returns the created work item with its ID'). It also clarifies that it creates a new item, not a modification. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is exactly two sentences, both highly informative. The first sentence states the action and required specification; the second covers the return and the prerequisite scope. No filler words or redundant details; it's front-loaded and efficient.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return value (created work item with ID). It also covers the key permission requirement. With 10 parameters, the schema descriptions provide the necessary per-parameter details, and the description offers the high-level usage context. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description is sufficient, though it could optionally mention handling custom fields via 'additionalFields'.

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 full descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description only mentions 'project, type, and fields' and lists example types ('Bug, Task, User Story, Epic, Feature, etc.'), which adds marginal context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new work item in Azure DevOps.' It identifies the required inputs (project, type, fields) and the result (returns the created work item with its ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like ado_workitems_update, ado_workitems_query, and ado_workitems_get, which focus on modifying or reading existing items.

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 makes the purpose explicit: to create a new work item. It does not explicitly call out when not to use it or suggest alternatives like ado_workitems_update for existing items, but the context of sibling tools and the tool name itself make the usage scenario clear. It gives minimal but sufficient guidance for an agent to select it over read/query/update tools.

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