create_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it warns that the record is permanent, prohibits speculative calls, and explains that priority is derived from impact and urgency rather than being directly settable. This meaningfully discloses side effects and constraints beyond the raw schema.

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 most critical warning, followed by duplicate-avoidance guidance, then a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified because it compensates for zero schema descriptions.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers side effects, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and routing to sibling tools. An output schema exists, so not detailing the return value is acceptable. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 Args section is essential and does a strong job. It explains requiredness, gives category values, defines impact and urgency scales with defaults, notes caller must be a known user, and clarifies assignment_group defaulting and cmdb_ci purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('incident'), and emphasizes 'NEW' to distinguish creation from updating or resolving existing incidents. It clearly states the tool creates a permanent record, leaving no ambiguity about its core function.

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 gives explicit pre-call instructions: check search_incidents or find_similar_incidents first, and if a matching active incident exists, add a comment instead via add_incident_comment. It also adds a strong 'do not call speculatively' warning, making the when-to-use decision unmistakable.

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