Create DevOps Center Work Item

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

The description only says 'creates a work item' and describes the entity, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations. It omits details like return value, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing DevOps project), or error conditions. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already indicate mutation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. It opens with a clear purpose and follows with a brief explanation of work items. However, the parameter list duplicates the schema descriptions, which is unnecessary and slightly wasteful, though not bloated.

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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and basic annotations. The description explains what a work item is and its lifecycle, but does not mention what is returned on creation, where to get pipelineStageId/assignedToId, or any prerequisites. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a creation tool.

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 100%, so parameters are fully explained in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter names and short descriptions, adding no new semantic meaning such as format, constraints, relationships, or how to obtain values like pipelineStageId. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Creates a work item in Salesforce DevOps Center.' This is a specific verb (creates) plus a specific resource (work item), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_checkout_devops_work_item or sf_list_devops_work_items. It also adds context about what work items are, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explains the domain context (work items move through pipeline stages) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_create_devops_pull_request. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and domain.

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