workflow_item_add

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the phase restriction and the postcondition that 'The item starts in "ready" state.' It does not describe failure modes or permissions, but the core side effect is clear and output schema covers return value details.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two key behavioral notes and a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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 simple 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers all inputs, default behavior, phase validity, and initial state. It leaves phase semantics and failure behavior implicit, but the essential calling context is present.

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%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter. It adds important semantic meaning, including the AC-NNN and RISK-NNN ID formats and the project_dir default behavior.

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 opens with 'Add a work item to the delivery plan,' a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workflow_item_transition and workflow_item_list by focusing on creation.

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 states a clear context constraint: 'Only valid in plan or deliver phase.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use it.

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