scf_create_system_capability

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

Annotations establish this is a write but not destructive operation; the description adds useful behavioral context by indicating an editor role is required, stating the one-capability-per-evidence/system constraint, and giving defaults for status and confidence. It does not discuss duplicate handling or returned values, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 with no filler; the core action, permission requirement, uniqueness constraint, and defaults are all front-loaded. Every clause contributes information the agent needs.

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 fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the conceptual model and constraints sufficiently. The only notable omissions are duplicate/error behavior and explicit return information, but these are secondary when the schema and annotations already carry most of the load.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking evidence_id and system_id to the uniqueness rule and by clarifying default behavior for capability_status and confidence_level beyond the schema entries.

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 states a clear action — declaring/creating a link between a system and one evidence type — and adds the key granularity rule (one entry per evidence_id per system). It is distinguishable from related tools like scf_update_system_capability by the create semantics, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call this when a system should be recorded as providing an evidence type, and the uniqueness constraint hints that an existing capability should not be recreated. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer scf_update_system_capability or what to do if the entry already exists.

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