create_workitem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral hint, that custom_fields is for *required* custom fields (implying creation fails without them), but says nothing about validation errors, notifications to assigned_to, or what happens on partial input.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 12-parameter creation tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained, notably where workitem_type_id comes from, what description_format defaults to in practice, and how participants/trackers/verifier identifiers are sourced.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description should compensate. It adds real meaning for two of them: assigned_to expects a member account ID (not a display name) and custom_fields maps names to values for required fields. The remaining ten parameters, including the required workitem_type_id, are left entirely to 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 states a specific verb and resource: '创建工作项' (create a workitem) scoped to '当前项目' (the current project). This lets an agent distinguish it from update_workitem and create_workitem_comment, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'in the current project' tells the agent not to pass a project id, but there is no guidance on prerequisites such as obtaining workitem_type_id from list_workitem_types or checking list_workitem_fields for required custom fields. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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