Create Incident Custom Field Selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful lifecycle context (deprecation) but says nothing about write semantics such as duplicate-selection handling, validation failures, or whether the created selection is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded, which is exactly the information an agent should see first. Nothing is wasted.

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 the safety profile. However, for a deprecated mutation tool the most important omission is the migration path — which form field endpoint replaces it — leaving an agent without enough to avoid the wrong call.

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 only 50%, and the description's only parameter-related content is the tautological 'from provided data'. It does not explain the incident_id scoping or that the nested attributes take their shape from the custom field's kind — that meaning lives only in the schema's inner field descriptions.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new incident custom field selection') and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_incident_form_field_selection by flagging itself as deprecated in favor of form field endpoints. The purpose would be a 5 if it named the exact replacement tool rather than the vague 'form field endpoints'.

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 deprecation banner is an explicit 'when not to use this' signal and points to an alternative family of endpoints. It stops short of naming the precise replacement sibling or any prerequisites, so routing still requires inference.

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