cases_create_related_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it creates a related item, but does not mention side effects, permissions, validation rules, or what happens on failure. The mutation aspect is implied by 'create' but no additional context is given.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It includes useful examples in parentheses without excessive detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 4 required parameters including a nested object, and has an output schema, but the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what 'related item' can be, how content should be structured, or what the return value represents. The description is far too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives examples of item_type ('contact, comment') but does not explain the content structure, domain_id, or case_id semantics. The content parameter is entirely opaque, leaving the agent guessing about required fields and format.

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 action 'Create a related item' and identifies the target resource 'for a case', with examples (contact, comment) that help distinguish it from sibling tools like cases_create_case. It does not fully enumerate all possible item types, leaving some ambiguity, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for creating related items, no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. Sibling tools like cases_update_case or cases_create_case are not referenced, so the agent gets no decision support.

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