create_work_package

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 states the tool creates a work package but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful specificity without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error handling, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter mapping.

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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'Task' as a default type (which aligns with the schema's default for 'typeId'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new work package'), with the parenthetical '(Task)' providing additional specificity about the default type. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_work_package' or 'list_work_packages' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential creation tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'update_work_package' or 'log_time'. Usage is implied only through the tool name and action.

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