Create OpenProject Work Package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write requirement and the create action, which implies mutation. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions beyond the env var, or the response format, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and the key prerequisite. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about required fields, meaning of type_id/project_id, or what a work package entails, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters, and the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). Parameter names like type_id and status_id are ambiguous without explanation, and the description does not compensate by listing required fields or offering guidance.

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 work package' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (work package), and the title explicitly mentions OpenProject. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_package and search_work_packages, which are read/search operations.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires OPENPROJECT_ENABLE_WRITE=true') but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. The purpose of creation is implied, but no explicit comparison to siblings like add_work_package_comment is given.

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