kyt_create_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the case is opened with status='open' and linked to the most recent screening, and mentions bundling of evidence, notes, and audit trail. However, it does not state potential side effects (e.g., whether the screening is marked as resolved), permissions required, or reversibility. This is moderate disclosure but lacks depth for a mutating 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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose and key behavioral detail (tied to most recent screening) are front-loaded, followed by the required parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the response format, such as whether a case ID is returned or how to retrieve the created case. It also omits error conditions and any prerequisites (e.g., that a screening must exist). For a creation tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds specific meaning for the 'address' parameter by linking it to the trigger and the most recent screening, which goes slightly beyond the schema. For 'chain' and 'notes', no additional semantics are added, so the value is marginal. Baseline of 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 verb (open), the resource (compliance case), and the specific context (from a flagged screening). It also describes what a case bundles (evidence, notes, audit trail) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kyt_screen_wallet and kyt_get_case by focusing on the creation action.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: after a flagged screening, passing the address that triggered the alert. It also specifies the behavior (opens under your org, status='open', tied to most recent screening). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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