Create research case

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

Annotations are neutral (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds the trait that 'the authorization decision is recorded in the event ledger', which is a useful side effect. Beyond that, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether the case is immediately visible. It is adequate but not rich.

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 no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and precondition, and the second adds a behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanations of fundamental concepts like what a 'case' is, how to select a proper method, and what 'target' refers to. The precondition assumes knowledge of the scope authorization workflow. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'target and method' generically and does not explain what each parameter (scope_id, target, title, method) means, how they relate to the authorization check, or the significance of the method enum values. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill in all parameters.

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 'Create' and the resource 'local case', establishing a specific action. It also adds a precondition about scope authorization, which helps distinguish it from other research tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research_get_case_state, missing an opportunity to clarify that this is for creation only.

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 a valuable condition: 'only after the registered scope currently authorizes the exact target and method.' This implies a workflow dependency on research_register_scope and research_check_scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it name alternatives or provide contraindications, leaving the agent to infer the full context.

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