grafana_criar_incidente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is an irreversible state-changing write, whether notifications/on-call escalations are triggered, whether the creator becomes the incident commander, what permissions are required, or what the initial state is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action, so nothing is padded. However, the leading "82." is leftover numbering noise that earns no place, and the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a 4-parameter write tool with no annotations, no enum on severidade, and 0% schema description coverage, the single sentence leaves critical information an agent needs (valid severity values, default behavior, label format, side effects) undocumented.

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% — every parameter has only a title. The description calls out severidade and descrição, covering half the parameters, but adds no meaning beyond the names: no allowed severity values, no note that severidade defaults to "major", no explanation of what rotulos (labels) accept, and it omits the required titulo entirely.

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 verb+resource pair ("declarar um novo incidente operacional") is specific and clearly distinguishes this from siblings such as grafana_atualizar_incidente, grafana_obter_incidente and grafana_listar_incidentes. It also names the two main attributes contributed (severidade and descrição). The stray "82." numbering prefix is noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to create a new incident versus when to update an existing one (grafana_atualizar_incidente) or add activity to it (grafana_adicionar_atividade_incidente), and no prerequisites, permissions or escalation/workflow context are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb "declarar".

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