start_standard_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 behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It reveals that the target state comes from project configuration and that the actual date is applied, but says nothing about permissions, whether dry_run truly makes no changes, idempotency if the item is already started, or error conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the preview/start duality first. It is efficient, though 'planned work' is slightly vague for an agent needing to know which items qualify.

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 no annotations, six parameters at 17% coverage, and a mutation that changes workflow state, the description should address prerequisites, safety of dry_run, and failure modes. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the behavioral gaps remain substantial.

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 only 17% (just confirm_project_identifier), so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics of the configured started state and the actual start date, and implies the preview role of dry_run, but leaves project_id versus confirm_project_identifier indirection and state_id override behavior unclear.

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 uses a concrete verb (start) with a clear resource implied by the name, and distinguishes a preview mode from an actual transition using the project's configured 'started' state. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like complete_standard_work_item or update_standard_work_item, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'Preview or start' hints that dry_run is for inspecting the outcome first, but it never states when to choose preview over the real transition, nor when to use this instead of update_standard_work_item or complete_standard_work_item. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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