Request PhishFort Incident Action

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description lists three actions including 'takedown' (destructive) and others. However, it fails to mention the required approval process and the 'destructive_confirmed' parameter, which are important behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short (9 words), but it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters. It is not efficiently informative; the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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's complexity (7 params, destructive hint, approval flow), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the approval mechanism, or the output. Although an output schema exists, the input side is barely addressed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not describe any parameter meanings, value options for 'action', or the purpose of approval-related fields. The tool has 7 parameters, and the description adds no semantic value.

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 requests takedown, monitoring, or safe review for an existing incident. It uses a specific verb ('request') and specifies the resource (existing incident) and action types, distinguishing it from siblings like 'report_incident' which creates new incidents.

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 context (requesting an action on an existing incident) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the agent to infer that this is for modifying an incident's state.

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