azure_create_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the act of creation but omits important behavioral context such as permissions required, default state auto-assignment, permanence of the creation, or response format. The schema includes a note about omitting 'state' on create, but this is not surfaced in the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence in Portuguese that states the action and resource with the supported types. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It fails to mention key operational context such as required type and title, default state behavior, or what the tool returns. The schema partially fills gaps, but the description should have at least referenced the most important behavioral constraints like 'omit state on create'.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists the work item types, which are already defined in the enum. Since the schema fully documents all 12 parameters, the description provides no additional semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cria' (creates) with a clear resource: 'um novo work item' in Azure DevOps, and lists the supported types (Task, Bug, User Story, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, and query work item.

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 implies usage by stating 'Cria um novo work item' but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention azure_update_work_item for modifications. The intent is clear but not explicitly differentiated from other operations.

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