create_incident

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED configuration requirement, which is a useful behavioral detail about a potential failure condition. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, providing the core action and a critical requirement without any fluff.

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 the full parameter schema and annotations, the description provides adequate context for invoking the tool: it states the creation action and the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite. It does not describe the return value or side effects beyond the openWorldHint annotation, but the essential information is present.

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?

The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('incident record'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_incident and update_incident. The addition of the WRITE_ENABLED requirement adds specificity and context.

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 makes the intended use obvious ('create a new incident record') and mentions a key prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use this tool.

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