create_work_item

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 does provide valuable transparency about the 'description_stripped' parameter, noting that it is a convenience field that gets wrapped into HTML and is ignored if 'description_html' is set. It also states the return type ('Created WorkItem object'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid input, which could be relevant for a create operation.

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 well-structured with a clear header, a comprehensive list of arguments, and a returns section. Each parameter is described in a single line with concise but meaningful explanation. Given that there are 19 parameters, the length is appropriate and every line provides useful information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

The description covers all required and optional parameters with sufficient detail, including types, formats, and special behaviors. It also indicates the return type in the 'Returns' line, and since an output schema exists, detailed return structure is not required. The description is comprehensive for a create operation with this many input parameters, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

The description adds significant semantic meaning to all 19 parameters beyond the bare schema types. For example, it states that project_id is a 'UUID', assignees is a 'List of user IDs', priority is 'urgent, high, medium, low, none', start_date and target_date use 'ISO 8601 format', and description_stripped has a special processing rule. This is especially valuable given the schema has 0% description 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 starts with 'Create a new work item', which clearly states the verb (create) and resource (work item). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_work_item, delete_work_item, and retrieve_work_item. The required params (project_id, name) further reinforce the action.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for creating new work items, with a straightforward context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, but the action is unambiguous. It also lists required parameters, implying that this tool should be used when creating a work item with those required fields. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, but the context is clear enough.

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