Create Incident Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing on top of them. It does not say whether the event is appended to the incident timeline, whether visibility defaults are applied, what permissions are required, or what happens on repeated calls for a non-idempotent create.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but 'from provided data' is pure filler and no useful information is front-loaded. Brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than through efficiency.

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 mutating, non-idempotent create with a nested payload (and an output schema that covers return values), the description omits what an event represents, how visibility 'internal' vs 'external' affects exposure, and required preconditions. The output schema removes the need to document returns, but the input-side and behavioral gaps remain.

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%; incident_id and the nested event/visibility fields are documented in the schema, but the required `data` wrapper and its JSON:API-style `type: incident_events` discriminator are never explained. The phrase 'from provided data' is the description's only nod to the payload, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Creates a new event' for 'Create Incident Event') and adds only the filler phrase 'from provided data'. It never explains what an incident event actually is (a timeline/summary entry on an incident) or how it differs from siblings like create_alert_event or create_incident_action_item.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that incident_id must reference an existing incident), and no mention of alternatives such as create_incident_action_item or create_alert_event. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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