create_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the basic action (registering a check) but omits critical behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on creation (e.g., whether it blocks or is asynchronous).

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 concise sentence but sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to quickly understand the tool's action, though it omits important details that could be included without significant bloat.

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 8 parameters, 63% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or important constraints (e.g., if a check with the same name can be recreated). The tool's complexity demands more detail.

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 63%, with parameters like detailsUrl, externalId, and rerequestable lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what is in the schema, failing to compensate for undocumented fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register a new check') and resource ('on a deployment'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_check, update_check, or rerequest_check. It also adds context about being for integrations reporting CI/quality results.

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 implies the tool is for creating checks related to CI/quality results, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like update_check or rerequest_check, and no prerequisites or context are provided.

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