create_incident

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the team-scoping constraint but does not disclose side effects, status defaults, or permission needs. It does not contradict the 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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the phrase 'one of the key's teams' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 write tool with five parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, the role of optional parameters, required fields, or how this creation action differs operationally from update_incident.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the missing meaning of title, message, or team_ids. It vaguely suggests team scoping, but team_ids is optional with a null default, which is potentially confusing. Required parameters like title and severity are not explained beyond their schema types.

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 clear action ('Open') and resource ('incident'), and adds scope ('in one of the key's teams'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_incidents, get_incident, and update_incident, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_incident or the call_write/generic write tools. The one-sentence description implies a creation action but provides no exclusions or conditions.

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