scf_create_capability_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires an editor role, each supplied finding becomes a deficiency linked to the test, and violating the result/findings rule returns a 422. It does not cover rate limits or idempotency, but the added behavioral detail is solid.

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 three short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action ('Record a capability test as run'), then adds permission and validation constraints in order of importance. 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?

For a write tool with 8 parameters, 7 required, nested findings, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers the write nature, editor requirement, the finding-to-deficiency effect, and the validation rule. It could be stronger by routing the agent away from sibling update/add-finding tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already says ('passed needs no findings; passed_with_findings or failed need at least one' mirrors the result field description, and 'Each finding becomes a deficiency' mirrors the findings field description). It only adds the 422 status code for that rule, which is a minor incremental detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a capability test as run.' It also indicates the write nature and required permission ('write — editor'). However, it does not name or differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as scf_update_capability_test or scf_add_capability_test_finding, leaving some ambiguity about when to create a new test versus add findings to an existing one.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say to use this instead of scf_update_capability_test or scf_add_capability_test_finding, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining org_id via scf_list_organizations. The only operational rules are validation constraints on findings, which are not usage routing.

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