create_case

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

Annotations only supply a safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: results are left behind unless include_results is set, which warns the agent about silent data omission. It does not, however, mention the overwrite-replaces-existing-case hazard, which is the riskiest behavior here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the qualifying caveat. No filler, and the exception clause is attached where it matters.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the source options and the results default, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the overwrite/replace behavior and any note about what the call returns or where the new case lands, so it is slightly short of fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself (including overwrite and include_results semantics). The description's parenthetical about results partially duplicates include_results' schema wording and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (case) plus the two supported sources: cloning a tutorial or copying an existing case. An agent can immediately separate this from list_tutorials, list_cases, clean_case and delete_case without inspecting any schema.

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 two creation paths imply usage, but the description never states when this tool is the right choice versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the source tutorial must first be found via list_tutorials, or that the target workspace must exist). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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