scf_create_engagement_query

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

The description explicitly notes 'write — org member or assigned auditor', adding permission context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (which only says false). It also discloses the constraint that the control must be in the engagement's frozen scope. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for a write operation this is acceptable given annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, permission, and scope constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Raise' and packs necessary context without fluff. A slightly clearer separation of the scope constraint could improve readability, but it is still concise.

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 create operation with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, permission, and a key precondition (frozen scope). However, it does not mention what happens on success (e.g., whether a query ID is returned) or any failure conditions, which an agent might need to know for a write action. This leaves some gaps.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as the format for scf_id or the purpose of title/body. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('Raise an auditor query') against a specific resource ('one control in the engagement's scope'), and distinguishes it from related tools like scf_respond_to_engagement_query or scf_update_engagement_query_status by focusing on the creation act. The permission note and scope constraint further sharpen its purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a new query) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools such as scf_list_engagement_queries, scf_respond_to_engagement_query, or scf_update_engagement_query_status. It does state the prerequisite that the control must be in the frozen scope, which is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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