start_case

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimal, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: redaction of credential-like text and constraint of project root to allowed directories. This added context is valuable, though it does not cover all potential side effects or authorization needs.

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, well-constructed sentence that immediately states the action ('Create a versioned case') and then adds essential qualifiers. No superfluous information; every word earns its place.

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 tool's three parameters, full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core purpose and key behavioral traits (redaction, constraint, versioning), providing enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has clear documentation. The tool description adds only a high-level summary of behavior (constraining, redacting) rather than parameter-specific details. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 versioned case', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cases and analyze_case by focusing on creation. The additional context 'after constraining the project root and redacting the report' clarifies the scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_artifact or plan_command. It implies prerequisites (constraining project root) but does not explicitly state conditions or exclusions.

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