work_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds 'durable', implying persistence. However, it does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or any post-creation consequences, leaving meaningful 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and key constraint efficiently.

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 the create operation, 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks return-value expectations, usage context relative to siblings, and parameter semantics, so an agent would need significant inference to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'acceptance criteria'. Required field 'objective' and optional fields like 'risks', 'sourceSession', and 'unresolvedQuestions' are left unexplained beyond their property names.

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 action ('Create') on a specific resource ('durable work item') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('with acceptance criteria'). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like work_get and work_list, and from other create tools like handoff_create and review_create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as work_verify, handoff_create, or review_create. The description implies creation, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or explicitly distinguish from sibling creation tools.

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