create_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the incident is created with an 'open' status and that its scope can be branch-wide or terminal-specific, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if terminal_code is omitted beyond relying on schema default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words; it names the action, resource, and key scoping distinction efficiently.

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 too sparse for a 5-parameter create tool with no annotations. It omits how priority values should be chosen, how to obtain valid branch/terminal codes, and whether terminal_code absence means branch-wide. Output schema covers return shape, but input semantics remain underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only maps scope to branch_code/terminal_code via 'branch-wide or terminal-specific', leaving title, description, and priority semantics undocumented.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('support incident'), and qualifies scope as branch-wide or terminal-specific. This clearly separates it from sibling operations like update_incident, resolve_incident, and list_incidents.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The verb 'Create' implies it is for new incidents, but the description does not mention checking search_similar_incidents first or explain when branch-wide vs terminal-specific should be chosen.

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