scf_create_engagement_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it explicitly labels the operation as a write, discloses the authorization requirements (editor role or assigned auditor), and states the scope precondition. It stops short of describing failure behavior, duplicate handling, or what the response contains, but the core mutation traits an agent needs are present.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The primary verb and purpose lead, followed by the role requirement in the same sentence, and the scope precondition in the second. 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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, authorization, and the critical scope precondition, while all 5 required parameters are fully documented. Minor gaps remain — no expectation of the return value, no note on error conditions if the control is out of scope, and no idempotency guidance — but nothing that would prevent a correct invocation.

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 is 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are enriched (e.g., org_id/engagement_id say 'obtain from scf_list_organizations' / 'scf_list_engagements', scf_id specifies the DOMAIN-NN format and points to scf_get_engagement_scope). The tool description adds semantic value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 'one control' and 'frozen scope' constraint, reinforcing why the scf_id must be scoped.

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 uses a specific verb ('Raise') with a precise resource ('an auditor query against one control in the engagement's scope'), which clearly distinguishes this creation action from the query-lifecycle siblings (scf_list_engagement_queries, scf_get_engagement_query, scf_respond_to_engagement_query, scf_update_engagement_query_status). The parenthetical '(write — ...)' also signals this is the mutating counterpart to the read-only query tools.

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 clear usage context and preconditions: it requires an editor role or an assigned auditor, and the target control must be in the engagement's frozen scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the role/scope conditions and the contrast with sibling query verbs make the selection context reasonably clear.

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