alm_create_defect

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It accurately describes the creation behavior, required fields, and output format, but omits details like authentication, permissions, or side effects (e.g., duplicate handling).

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, uses bullet points, and is front-loaded with the purpose. It is slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all inputs and output. It provides extra_field examples but could mention project/domain context.

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 0%, and the description adds significant value: it explains each parameter, provides valid values for severity/priority, and gives concrete examples for extra_fields, making the input schema fully interpretable.

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 'Create a new defect (bug) in the ALM project.' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like alm_update_defect, alm_list_defects, etc.

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 clear context by listing parameters and return values, and the name implies creation vs. update. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updates), but the sibling context fills the gap.

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