ado_work_item_create

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

Annotations already declare this a non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, so 'WRITE:' adds little. The description does contribute one genuine constraint beyond the schema — 'No credential values in fields or arguments' — but omits the operationally important consequence of idempotentHint=false (retries create duplicate work items) and says nothing about permissions or failure 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutation marker and the required field lead. The only mild redundancy is 'WRITE:', which restates what readOnlyHint=false already conveys.

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?

Placeholder for completeness assessment.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It names only one field key ('System.Title') inside the free-form `fields` object and says nothing about `type` (work item type) or the nested `target` object's organization/project/repository components.

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 work item'), which cleanly separates it from ado_work_item_get/update/query siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the create-vs-read-vs-update split is unambiguous from the 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 when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says to check for an existing item first (ado_work_items_query) or to use ado_work_item_update for subsequent changes. The only guidance is a required-field hint ('Supply System.Title'), which is parameter help rather than usage routing.

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