create_support_case

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and parent association, omitting important details like required permissions, side effects, or the meaning of testCase or priority. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and the parent association. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having a complex schema with 9 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description provides minimal contextual completeness. It does not explain the return value, failure behavior, or how parameters like classification or subscriberEmailAddresses factor into the creation process.

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 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning parent association but does not clarify parameter details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 support case and associates it with a parent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listing or updating cases, though it lacks additional detail about the case creation process.

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 implied usage is to create a new support case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_support_case or search_support_cases. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a parent resource or classification.

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