create_incident

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the instruction to not retry automatically after communication failure, the instance-dependent required fields, and the field whitelist/blacklist. This goes beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Three tight sentences, the first states the core action and accepted fields, the second adds reference and instance constraints, and the third covers disallowed fields and retry behavior. Zero filler, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 essential context for a create tool: accepted field names, reference format, instance-dependent required fields, forbidden fields, and retry policy. The output schema (not shown in description) and the required short_description are captured in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 0% coverage for the fields property (it is open-ended), so the description must compensate. It does so by naming accepted fields (description, impact, urgency, caller_id, u_*) and rules (references must be sys_id, number and sys_* are disallowed). It omits mentioning that short_description is required, but that is in the schema.

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 it creates an incident ('Cria incidente') and enumerates accepted fields (description, impact, urgency, caller_id, u_*) and disallowed ones (number, sys_*), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_incidents, get_incident, update_incident, and add_incident_comment.

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 explicit usage constraints: references must use sys_id, extra required fields depend on the instance, and it disallows number or sys_* fields. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus updating an existing incident, though that is easily inferable from the name.

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