ops_incident_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'config-backed incident templates' and 'tracked' status, offering some context about template dependencies and persistence. However, it fails to disclose critical mutation behaviors such as side effects, idempotency, return value structure, or the security implications of the token_override parameter.

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 single-sentence description is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Create' and avoids redundant phrasing. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema documentation), the extreme brevity becomes a liability rather than a virtue, leaving insufficient room for necessary parameter and behavioral guidance.

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 10 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical information about the severity enum values, the dry_run testing mode, authentication via token_override, and the structure of the created record, forcing the agent to guess at parameter usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all 10 parameters undocumented. The description fails to compensate for this gap, mentioning only the 'announce' capability implicitly and providing no details about severity levels, dry_run behavior, channel formatting, or the purpose of token_override. This leaves the agent without guidance on required parameter semantics.

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 core action ('Create... a tracked incident record') and mentions the optional announce capability. It distinguishes the tool from non-incident siblings (ops_access*, ops_broadcast*, etc.) by specifying the 'incident' resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings ops_incident_update and ops_incident_close regarding the incident lifecycle.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ops_incident_update for existing incidents. While the word 'optionally' hints at the announce parameter's flexibility, there is no guidance on when announcement is appropriate or what the dry_run parameter is for.

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