Create Work Item

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

Discloses that complex array/object values are automatically JSON-stringified and that dry_run defaults to true for safety. These go beyond the annotations (which already indicate destructive potential) and add useful behavioral context for safe execution.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite guidance, and safety default. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema) and the richness of the input schema, the description covers the essential usage steps and safety behavior. It doesn't discuss return values or error cases, but the schema and annotations mitigate the gap, making it adequately complete.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the JSON-stringification behavior for field_value. The description adds little beyond the schema except the reference to workitem_meta_fields for field_key discovery, which is a minor addition.

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 work item in Meegle' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like workitem_get, workitem_update, and workitem_query 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?

Provides clear context by directing users to use workitem_meta_fields for valid field_key discovery and mentions the dry_run default as a safety measure. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it misses the top score.

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