create_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates items but lacks details on permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a work ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 40% (only 'applies_to_part' and 'owned_by' have descriptions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to explain 'type' enum values, 'title' purpose, or 'body' content. With low coverage, it doesn't compensate, but the schema's enum and required fields provide some structure, keeping it at baseline.

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 item (issue, ticket) in DevRev'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_work' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_works' or 'get_work' beyond the action verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'update_work' for modifications or 'list_works' for viewing existing items.

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