Create Incident Form 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 nothing beyond that — it does not say what happens on a duplicate selection (non-idempotent), whether existing selections are replaced, or what the required payload shape means for the many selected_* arrays.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding, but "from provided data" is filler that conveys nothing. The brevity is closer to under-specification than to 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. But for a nested-payload creation tool whose input schema only half-documents its parameters and whose idempotency is false, the description leaves the agent without the kind-to-field mapping or the duplicate-handling behavior it needs to call this correctly.

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 payload is a nested object, yet the description adds zero parameter meaning beyond "from provided data." It never explains that which selected_* arrays to populate depends on the custom field's kind (text uses value, select/multi_select uses the id arrays), which is the single most important semantic an agent needs here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new incident form field selection"), so the agent knows exactly which entity is being written. It does not, however, distinguish this from the adjacent siblings create_incident_custom_field_selection or update_incident_form_field_selection, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create_incident_custom_field_selection, nor any prerequisites such as the incident existing or the form field needing to be placed on the form. The phrase "from provided data" gives no routing context.

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