wetrack_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, and it does a solid job: it discloses that description is required for BUG, story_points required for STORY, end_date must be after start_date, HTML is supported in description, and the first assignee becomes primary. It does not cover permissions or idempotency, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and not present in the schema.

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 front-loads the purpose and then uses a tight parameter list where every line adds needed information. For a 15-parameter tool with conditional requirements, the length is justified and there is no filler.

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 definition is largely complete for a complex create tool: it covers required fields, type-specific rules, defaults, date ordering, tags, assignees, sprint, and parent linkage. It could also tell the agent where to obtain status_id or project_id, but it already names one lookup source and the output schema exists, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter with practical semantics: enum-like ticket_type values, where to get priority_id, defaults for status_id, conditional requirements, date ordering, and parent relationships. This is significantly more helpful than the bare input 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new work item — EPIC, STORY, TASK, or BUG.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create tools like wetrack_create_support_ticket by naming the exact work-item types it handles.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to create a new work item. It provides type-specific requirements and defaults, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives like wetrack_update_ticket for modifying existing items.

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