create_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the case becomes active and that runs, findings, and decisions are recorded in it, but it omits return values, failure conditions (e.g., if a case is already active), and permissions.

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 two sentences plus a short example, front-loading the core action and state change. Every element contributes without waste.

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 one-parameter creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, activation, and container behavior. It falls short on routing against the sibling 'open_case' and on what the caller receives or how errors are signaled.

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% for the single 'title' parameter. The example ('Noisy SID 1000042 on the proxy capture') adds practical meaning about the expected title content, but no constraints or naming rules are stated.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a case') and adds that the new case is made active, which goes beyond the title alone. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling 'open_case', leaving the create-vs-open distinction unresolved.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use create_case versus alternatives such as open_case, list_cases, or get_case. The example implies a scenario (creating a case for a noisy SID) but does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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