create_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior: the API always creates items in the default/first stage unless stage_id is provided, and stage_id moves the item after creation. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or the return value, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single dense paragraph that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of requirements versus optional fields. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers many important aspects: required fields, task vs story differences, hierarchy, dependencies, dates, and stage behavior. It is not exhaustive (missing some optional parameters and error/return information), but it is substantially complete for a create tool, especially compared to typical descriptions.

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 explains the semantics of many parameters: importance_level_id, category_id, parent_id, assigned_user_ids, dependency_ids, sub_tasks, due_date/start_date, and stage_id. It does not explain all parameters (e.g., tag_ids, board_id, is_story, estimated_cost), but it covers the most critical ones, adding significant value over the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a work item (task or user story), distinguishing it from update/delete operations. It also immediately clarifies the two types of work items and key properties like parent_id for nesting, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context on required fields (title, importance_level_id) and where to fetch IDs from (get_project/list_*). It also explains when category_id is required and how parent_id establishes hierarchy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_work_item or state when not to use this tool.

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