azuredevops_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 behavioral burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but it discloses nothing about required permissions, validation of the type field, whether creation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. Only the project-required prerequisite is noted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's project description, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description never states what is returned (e.g., the new work item ID), which agents typically need for follow-up calls like add_comment or parent linking. With no annotations and 11 parameters, more behavioral context was warranted, though full schema coverage limits the damage.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema, including the type enumerations and tag/areaPath formats. The description only restates the work item types and the project requirement, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Azure DevOps work item') and enumerates the work item types it handles. The create-vs-read-vs-update distinction from siblings like get_work_item and update_work_item is easy to infer, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 only guidance is 'Project is required - discover it from project context,' which is a prerequisite hint rather than when-to-use guidance. It never says when to choose this over update_work_item, add_comment, or how it relates to search_work_items, and offers no exclusions.

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