Api incidents create

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

The description frames the tool as an export mixin, implying a read/retrieval operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the name indicates a create. It discloses nothing about what a create call produces, required fields, or side effects. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no padding, but brevity here is under-specification rather than concision. The one sentence it spends is spent on the wrong subject, so nothing is front-loaded usefully.

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 non-idempotent, open-world create operation with an opaque body parameter, no output schema, and no annotation-level detail, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is present, and the stated purpose is wrong.

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% and the sole parameter is an untyped free-form `body` object with additionalProperties=true. The description offers no information about what belongs in that body, so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid request payload.

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 says "Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports," which describes an export/reporting concern. The tool is named and titled as an incidents create operation. The description neither states a create verb nor a resource an agent could act on, and it is actively misleading rather than merely vague.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_incidents_list or ciso_assistant_api_incidents_export_csv_retrieve. The one sentence present points the agent toward export behavior that other sibling tools actually provide, so the guidance is worse than absent.

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