createIncident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions HTTP response codes (201, 401, 422) and content types, which adds some behavioral context like success and error conditions. However, it lacks critical details for a mutation tool: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but then devotes most space to HTTP response examples, which are verbose and not directly helpful for tool selection. The structure is somewhat cluttered, with markdown formatting that adds noise. It could be more concise by focusing on actionable information rather than API response details.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, schema coverage 0%, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter structure, does not leverage the output schema to clarify return values, and omits behavioral traits like authentication needs or data requirements. The response examples add minor context but do not compensate for major 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how to structure the 'data' object. With no parameter information in the description and poor schema coverage, the agent lacks essential guidance on what data to provide.

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 the tool 'Creates a new incident from provided data', which clearly indicates a write operation (create) on a resource (incident). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createAlert' or 'createService', leaving ambiguity about when to create an incident versus other entities. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'createAlert', 'createService', and 'listIncidents', there is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The response examples hint at error conditions (e.g., 401 for invalid token), but this does not constitute usage guidance for tool selection.

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