create_work_package

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about creation scope and nesting but no additional behavioral detail like return value, permission needs, or side effects. It is consistent and adequate given the 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage hints follow compactly.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow and the two most nuanced parameters. It is solidly complete, though it does not describe the return value or confirmation behavior of the created work package.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for type_id (source it from list_project_types) and parent_id (nesting behavior), going beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('new work package'), and the project context. It names the kind of objects handled (Epic, User Story, Task, Bug), and by saying 'a new' it implicitly distinguishes from the bulk sibling create_work_packages_bulk.

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?

Gives clear action-oriented guidance: use list_project_types first for type_id, and pass parent_id to nest a User Story under an Epic. It establishes context and prerequisites, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to the bulk alternative.

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