scf_create_deficiency

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write, so the description's job is to add mutation context beyond that. It does: it discloses the editor role requirement, the initial lifecycle state ('Starts open'), and the referential constraints (control must be in scope; risk must be assessed). It stops short of describing whether the response returns the new id or how 422s surface, but the added context is real.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the constraint, then the initial state. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical input constraint and lifecycle starting point. It leaves owner-name vs owner-user-id precedence and post-create behavior unstated, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description supplies a cross-field rule the schema does not encode: the required list is only org_id and title, yet scf_id or risk_code must be present in combination. That is meaningful semantics beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Raise a deficiency') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('by hand') that separates it from auto-generated deficiencies reachable through sibling tools. An agent can tell it apart from scf_update_deficiency and scf_get_deficiency without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('At least one of scf_id or risk_code is required') tied to the target being an in-scope control or an assessed risk, which is the key selection condition for this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the required context is clear.

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