Create an incident

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly warns that the operation 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires operator write opt-in, which goes beyond the structured hints. It does not contradict the annotations and covers the key side-effect profile.

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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, endpoint, body fields, reference, prerequisites, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no fluff. It is slightly dense but well-organized; a brief list format could improve scanability, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

For a create tool with nested objects, no output schema, and several sibling alternatives, the description provides the essentials (endpoint, body fields, confirm requirement, side effects). However, it does not explain when to choose this over trigger_an_incident or modify_an_incident, nor does it mention response behavior or error handling. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding between related operations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by listing 'summary, description, severity, status' as body fields, confirming the required fields and hinting at additional allowed ones. It also explains that confirm must be true and requires the XMATTERS_ALLOW_WRITES setting, which the schema already states but the description reinforces with operational context.

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 identifies the action ('Create an incident') and the resource (incidents), with the endpoint POST /api/xm/1/incidents. It is distinct from the sibling 'trigger_an_incident' in wording, though it does not explicitly contrast them, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 states prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true) and side effects, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trigger_an_incident or modify_an_incident. There is no mention of conditions that would make this tool the right choice, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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