Create problem

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write. The description adds error conditions (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and a return type, which is useful but somewhat boilerplate and vague about the response shape.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it uses a docstring format with redundant type annotations and does not make efficient use of the limited space to explain parameters.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to provide problem data, what fields are accepted, or how the many sysparm_* parameters apply to a create operation.

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 coverage is 0% for 15 parameters. The description mentions ':param kwargs:' and 'data for the problem', but the schema's main input parameter is named 'data', and none of the sysparm_* parameters are explained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation and may even confuse the agent about parameter naming.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new problem record.' It clearly distinguishes the resource from other create tools like create_incident or create_change_request, though it does not explicitly name siblings or scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context about required data. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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