backlog_create_work

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: parentless work surfaces as unfiled at wakeup. This adds context beyond the tool name, but there is no information about side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is established in the first sentence, and additional guidance follows immediately. Every part 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?

With 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains only the parent_id behavior but omits details about content, references, the 'as' parameter, and return value. For a creation tool, more context is needed for proper agentic selection.

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 only 20% (only 'as' is described in schema). The description adds meaning to 'parent_id' by explaining the consequence of omitting it. However, other parameters ('title', 'content', 'references') receive no additional clarification, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 states 'Use when creating a project work item' which clearly identifies the action (creating) and the resource (project work item). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like backlog_capture_requirement or backlog_remember, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 a when-to-use statement ('Use when creating a project work item') and parameter guidance ('Pass parent_id when known'), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. The usage is implied rather than directly compared to siblings.

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