create_work_item_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains scope-dependent creation behavior, conditional required fields, and the return of a created object. However, it omits potential edge cases like providing work_item_type_id without project_id, error handling, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a create operation with complex scoping.

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 summary, scope resolution, args, and returns sections. It is longer than minimal, but given the need to document 15 parameters without schema descriptions, each section earns its place. The front-loaded summary immediately states the core action.

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 complex 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers parameter semantics, scoping logic, and return value. The only notable gap is not addressing the invalid combination of work_item_type_id without project_id, and lacking error-condition guidance. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides zero description coverage, yet the description lists all 15 parameters with types, constraints, and conditional logic (e.g., 'relation_type required when property_type=RELATION', 'settings required for TEXT/DATETIME', 'options for OPTION'). It adds rich semantics beyond the bare schema types, including detailed format examples for settings and scope resolution rules.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new work item property' with a specific verb and resource. The scope resolution section further clarifies the three possible scopes, distinguishing this create operation from update/delete/list siblings.

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 gives clear context on when to use different parameter combinations (project_id, work_item_type_id, neither) and provides conditional requirements (relation_type for RELATION, settings for TEXT/DATETIME). It does not explicitly mention using update_work_item_property for existing properties, but the tool name and 'Create a new' imply when this tool applies, making the usage clear without explicit exclusions.

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