start_project_work_packet

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

Annotations indicate the tool is destructive, read-write, and non-idempotent, but the description does not elaborate on side effects such as whether starting a work packet creates records, triggers approvals, or modifies existing state. The description is consistent with annotations but lacks behavioral depth.

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It directly states the action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not explain the parameters, expected outcomes, side effects, prerequisites, or what happens after proposing or starting the work packet. With no output schema details, the tool's behavior is largely opaque.

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?

Both parameters (company_ref, project_ref) are required strings but completely lack descriptions. The description does not explain what these references mean, how they are formatted, or how they relate to the 'approved Project work packet'. Schema coverage is 0%.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Propose or start') and the specific resource ('Spring's exact approved Project work packet'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools that also relate to project work packets, such as get_project_work_packet_run or start_project_mission_run.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites are mentioned. It only states the action without explaining the context or decision criteria for selecting this tool.

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