create_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new incident' gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications, requires specific permissions, or is irreversible), return value, or failure modes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, making it front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative. It is not overly verbose, but the extreme brevity reduces its usefulness, warranting a middle score rather than a high one.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, this description is severely incomplete. The agent has no idea what inputs are essential beyond the one required field, what the response will look like, or what behaviors result from creation. It fails to provide any necessary context for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 40%, with descriptions for only 4 of 10 parameters (caller_id, assigned_to, assignment_group, short_description). The tool description adds nothing about parameter meaning, formats, or relationships. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to, leaving the agent to guess about fields like impact, urgency, and priority.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new incident'), making it obvious what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_incident or resolve_incident, relying on the tool name's distinctiveness. The verb and resource are specific enough for a 4, but the lack of differentiation prevents a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a user or assignment group), nor when to choose create over update or resolve. The description is a bare imperative with no context for decision-making.

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