create_standard_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load. It does disclose important non-obvious behavior: deduplication via idempotency_key or title, and the allow_duplicate override. But it is silent on dry_run semantics, allow_create_module side effects (creating modules!), and the rejection condition for confirm_project_identifier, which are the riskiest parts of a create tool.

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?

Two compact paragraphs; the core purpose is front-loaded and the duplicate-handling caveat is cleanly separated. Not bloated, though it spends its limited space on duplicate semantics while omitting higher-value parameter explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 27-parameter creation tool with zero annotations and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. Critical behaviors such as dry_run, module creation via allow_create_module, and project targeting validation go unexplained.

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?

With 27 parameters and only 4% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily, but it explains only the idempotency/duplicate trio and loosely gestures at labels and module/cycle fields. Core required params (outcome, acceptance_criteria), title_parts, dry_run, complexity, confirm_project_identifier, and allow_create_module are left entirely to a bare schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a structured Plane work item') and enumerates distinguishing capabilities: labels, duplicate review, optional module/cycle assignment, and planning fields. An agent can tell this apart from list/find/update siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with start_standard_work_item or create_standardization_plan.

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 second paragraph gives useful conditional usage advice: reuse the same idempotency_key (or same title) when retrying, and use distinct keys with allow_duplicate=true for intentional duplicates. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like start_standard_work_item or update_standard_work_item, and no prerequisites are stated.

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