Create Incident Action Type

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The added behavioral context is minimal.

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 relatively concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Creates...' repeated, 'Incidents' confusion). It could be more efficient. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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?

With no output schema, the description should provide more details about the response object, but it merely states 'returns the created object.' It lacks information on defaults (e.g., active flag), uniqueness constraints, or typical use cases. The tool's complexity and sibling set warrant a more complete description.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description repeats required parameters but adds no additional semantics such as format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it creates an Incident Action Type with a specified name, and provides the required parameters. However, it confusingly refers to 'Incidents' instead of 'Incident Action Type' in one instance, which slightly detracts from clarity. It distinguishes from siblings (update, delete, list) but not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update, update, or delete. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. For a tool with many siblings, this is a significant gap.

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