thehive_create_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions that cases support tasks, observables, and collaborative investigation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any prerequisites, permissions, or potential side effects (though creation is likely safe). The behavior is adequately described for a creation tool.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage context and features. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 explains the tool's purpose and usage context well, but it does not mention the return value (likely the created case) or provide guidance on parameter values (e.g., severity scale, PAP/TLP meanings). The schema covers parameter details, so this is a minor gap.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond mentioning that cases support tasks and observables, which aligns with the schema's parameters. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is baseline.

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 TheHive case for in-depth investigation, with specific context of escalating from alerts or directly from NIDS findings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like thehive_create_alert and thehive_search_cases by specifying the resource and task.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool: for in-depth investigations, either by escalating from alerts or creating directly from significant NIDS findings. It implies alternatives like creating alerts for less severe events, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other tools.

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