anon_post_onsite_incidents

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that submitting this notifies project managers (a side effect), and that projectId is derived from the API key so must not be passed. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose followed by constraints and the endpoint. Mostly tight, though the raw HTTP path and method line are redundant detail that an agent does not need to invoke the tool.

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?

No output schema, and for a destructive create operation the description covers the notification side effect and project scoping but omits permission requirements, return behavior, and the semantics of the category values. Adequate but with visible 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single body param is a nested object (category, note, moduleId), so the burden is on the description. It clarifies moduleId ('须为本项目任务模块') and the absence of projectId, partially compensating, but leaves the category enum values and note length unaddressed.

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 verb+resource: reporting an on-site incident and notifying project managers. It identifies the endpoint and the fact that incidents are project-scoped, which distinguishes it from the read (anon_get_onsite_incidents) and resolve (anon_post_onsite_incidents_iid_resolve) siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It implies usage context ('项目成员上报异常' - project members report incidents) and adds the moduleId constraint, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or contrast with the sibling resolve endpoint that also acts on incidents. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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