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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' without mentioning side effects (e.g., creating a persistent record), any permission requirements, or the fact that it's a write operation. The schema documents parameters, but the description does not explain what happens when the tool is called, leaving behavioral expectations vague.

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 sentence with zero filler, making it very concise and readable. The key information (action and resource) is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on tautological with the title, but it still earns its place by adding 'in a project' and being clearly structured.

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?

With 12 parameters and no annotations, the description does not supplement the schema with necessary context. The schema already covers parameter formats and lookup instructions, and the output schema presumably covers return values, but the description omits any usage context, behavioral notes, or mention of required permissions. For a mutation tool, the description is not complete enough to guide an agent without additional inference.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a description (e.g., 'use list_states to find it', 'ISO date'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description neither helps nor harms beyond that.

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 ('create') and resource ('work item', 'project'), clearly indicating the action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_work_item or list_work_items, but the verb makes the purpose unambiguous. The title and description are consistent, and the wording is specific enough for an agent to understand the core action.

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. It neither mentions related tools nor states prerequisites like 'when you need to add a new item to a project' or 'when a work item does not already exist'. With no context about selecting this over update_work_item or list_work_items, the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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