new

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

Annotations already establish write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: default type resolution and the fact that the new work package becomes the current context. It omits the preview/confirmation prerequisite (cf) and the notification side effect, both of which matter for a create operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Both the default-type rule and the context-switch effect are stated in a single clause each.

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 16-parameter mutation tool the description is very thin, though the schema and annotations carry most of the load. Nothing is said about what is returned (e.g., the new work package's id) or the confirmation-code workflow that the schema hints at, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 every one of the 16 parameters already carries its own documentation, including the default-type rule for tipo. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Cria um work package" gives a specific verb and resource, and "O criado vira o atual" clarifies the post-creation effect. It does not name any sibling (up, cm, cx) to help an agent distinguish creation from updating or commenting, leaving that inference to the caller.

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?

"Sem tipo usa o tipo padrão do projeto" documents a fallback rather than when-to-use guidance, and "o criado vira o atual" implies that follow-up operations can target the new item implicitly. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over up (edit) or how the cf-confirmation flow sequences with the call.

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