scf_create_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write (creation) and requires "editor+" role. It also notes potential linking to capabilities/evidence. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether name must be unique), error conditions, or the return value.

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 sentences deliver the essential information: action, resource, role, and a key relationship. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple create operation with good schema coverage, but it lacks details on return values, failure modes, or uniqueness constraints, which would be useful given the 9 parameters.

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 adds no extra parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides; it only adds a general note about linking to capabilities/evidence.

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 ("Create") and resource ("system in the organization's infrastructure inventory"). It also mentions the required role ("editor+") and that systems can be linked to capabilities/evidence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool scf_update_system, though the verb implies creation.

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 indicates the required role ("editor+") but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_update_system or scf_list_systems. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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