pagerduty_create_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' without explaining that this operation is non-idempotent, may trigger alerts, requires authentication, or produces a new incident record. Key behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, effect on existing incidents) are omitted.

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 that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. However, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity, missing structure like a summary of key parameters or behavior.

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 the tool has 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention that the tool returns the created incident details, that it triggers notifications, or that certain parameters (e.g., 'from') may be required based on account settings. The agent lacks context to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., that 'urgency' defaults or 'from' is conditionally required). It neither improves nor degrades clarity.

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 PagerDuty incident on a service. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('PagerDuty incident'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like pagerduty_acknowledge_incident, pagerduty_resolve_incident, etc. However, it does not explicitly mention the required service context beyond what the schema indicates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., acknowledge, resolve). It does not mention prerequisites such as having a valid API key or service ID, nor does it indicate scenarios where creating an incident is appropriate (e.g., alerting on-call teams).

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