Create Incident

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that all fields are optional, what happens when title is omitted (autogeneration), or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, the size is achieved partly by omitting information rather than by compressing it, so it is not 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a create tool with zero required parameters, the description should tell the agent that all fields are optional, that an incident is still created with no title, and what 'scoped' excludes (e.g., it cannot set status or assignee here).

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 100% and each field carries its own description including title autogeneration and comma-separated ID formats. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create an incident. The phrase 'scoped set of fields' signals this is a limited-create endpoint vs update_incident, though the scope is not spelled out. An agent can tell it creates rather than updates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs update_incident, or what to do when an incident already exists. 'For agent-driven workflows' is a vague hint, not a usage rule. Nothing about prerequisites or required IDs.

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