create_problem

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

The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is not present in annotations, and it aligns with readOnlyHint=false by indicating a write operation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as return values, error conditions, or the open-world nature of the schema, so it provides only partial context beyond 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 with no filler, front-loading the action and a concise prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a straightforward create operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient: it states the action and a key prerequisite. It does not explain output format, but that is not necessary given the simple nature of the tool and existing structured metadata.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the required short_description and priority levels. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'problem record', making its purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_problem, update_problem, and resolve_problem, which cover other lifecycle operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_incident or create_record. It only mentions the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite but does not explain the appropriate context for choosing this tool over others.

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