create_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutating operation, but nothing is said about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects beyond the basic action.

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 concise—one sentence with no wasted words—and is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance; it adds little beyond a restatement of the tool's purpose and does not justify its own existence beyond a minimal gloss.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully insufficient. An agent would have no idea what inputs to provide, how to construct a valid request, or what to expect in return. The description only offers the most superficial overview.

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%, meaning none of the 14 parameters (including the 4 required ones) are explained in the description. The parameter names and types alone do not convey semantics like expected formats, constraints, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('custom org case'), which distinguishes it from creating an assessment or other entities. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'case' or how it differs from platform cases, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_assessment or when a case should be created. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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