Create Defect

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) align with 'create'. Description adds context about linking to test results but doesn't disclose missing details like duplicate handling or project scope. With annotations present, the description is adequate.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and provide usage context without unnecessary words. Efficient for a tool with few parameters.

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?

The description covers the tool's core responsibility and usage context. With an output schema present, no need to detail return values. Sufficiently complete for a create operation.

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 100%, so description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema. The description mentions 'known defect' but doesn't elaborate on parameters like name, description, or output_format.

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 tool creates a new defect in the current project and explains its purpose for linking to failing test results via defect matchers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_defect, list_defects, and create_defect_matcher.

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?

It provides a clear usage scenario (registering a defect for future linking) without explicitly stating when not to use or listing alternatives. The context is sufficient given the sibling set.

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