Create Property Damage

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

The description mentions it returns HTTP 201 and the created object, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint false). It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or error cases, but with annotations present, this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 short and front-loads the purpose. However, it contains redundancy (mentions 'Creates a new Incidents' twice) and a grammatical error ('Incidents' instead of 'Incident'). Still, it is efficient and provides endpoint info.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context: it does not clarify that an incident must already exist, does not explain how property damage fits into the incidents module, and does not guide on which optional parameters are relevant. More context is needed for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates required params but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter-specific guidance is given, so the description does not improve understanding of optional parameters.

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 a Property Damage record and provides the endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like update/destroy property damage, though it confusingly says 'Creates a new Incidents' instead of 'Creates a property damage under an incident.' Overall purpose is clear, but could be more precise.

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 lists required parameters (project_id, incident_id) implicitly indicating an existing incident is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_incident. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from context.

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