swsd_create_service_request

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

Annotations already indicate write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds critical context: does not retry on transient failure, suggests verifying with `swsd_get_incident`, and notes the returned incident ID. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, but slightly verbose. Could be trimmed without losing information, but still clear and organized.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, write operation), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, return value, retry guidance, and validation. No output schema provided but description mentions returned ID. Adequate for agent to use correctly.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds workflow context: `catalog_item_id` auto-populates incident fields, `request_variables` requires `custom_field_id` from variables, `custom_fields` requires pre-discovery. Also specifies validated types (Text, Dropdown, Number, Checkbox, Date).

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 submits a SWSD catalog request to create an incident with `is_service_request: true`. It differentiates from siblings like `swsd_create_incident` by specifying the catalog context and auto-set flag.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use `swsd_list_catalog_items` and `swsd_get_catalog_item` to find and inspect catalog items, and `swsd_describe_custom_fields` for custom fields. Lacks direct comparison to alternatives but implies when this tool is appropriate.

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