scf_create_engagement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond 'create' by disclosing the write nature, the admin role requirement, and the important side effect that in-scope controls are frozen against the current catalog version so the scope persists after deprecations. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and role; the second explains the crucial freeze behavior. Every clause 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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description provides the key context: admin role, write operation, and a non-obvious scoping/freeze side effect. It does not specify the return value, but that is a minor gap given the schema fully documents inputs and the description explains the most important consequence.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond the schema, only referring generically to 'named frameworks'. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Create an audit engagement', a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from siblings like scf_get_engagement, scf_update_engagement, and scf_delete_engagement. The parenthetical '(write — admin role)' and the scope-freezing behavior add precision about what this action does.

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 states an admin role is required, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over other engagement tools, nor does it mention when it should not be used. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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