Create custom Immediate Threat

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

The description discloses the key requirement that the body must follow the Cymulate custom-threat schema, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, validation behavior, or consequences of invalid payloads. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the schema constraint but not much else.

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 consists of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provide a critical constraint on the payload. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations already cover the read-only/destructive hints, the description is reasonably complete. It states the action and the primary constraint (schema conformance). It could be more complete by explaining what an Immediate Threat is or where to find the schema, but these are external references.

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 input schema describes the only parameter 'payload' as 'Custom threat payload', which is generic. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the body should follow the Cymulate custom-threat schema, telling the agent how to construct the payload. This goes beyond the schema's own documentation.

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's action: 'Upload a custom Immediate Threat with your own IOCs.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and resource ('custom Immediate Threat'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catalog, get_ioc_list, get_detection, and get_latest_ids.

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 usage for uploading custom threats with user-provided IOCs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternative tools for similar purposes, so the guidance remains implicit.

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