create_incident_ticket

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

Annotations already mark non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), but the description adds valuable context: the tool appends to an in-memory registry and warns that calling twice creates two tickets. Also discloses the return value (ticket ID and full incident object). While not exhaustive about side effects, it covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The IMPORTANT warning is highlighted appropriately, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well structured for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the creation behavior, when to use, the duplicate risk, a pre-check resource, and the return value. This gives the agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 covers all three parameters (title, severity, description) with descriptive details and validation. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 'creates' and specific resource ('new incident ticket') and explicitly mentions appending to the in-memory registry. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_recent_deployments' or 'trigger_rollback' by focusing on formal tracking creation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a new issue is detected that warrants formal tracking.' Also provides an exclusion by telling the agent to check for existing incidents with 'incident://current' before creating, thus preventing duplicates. This is clear contextual guidance beyond just the operation.

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