Create Incident Type

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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond this – no mention of validation behavior, what happens if a name already exists, or whether the operation can partially fail.

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 short sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It earns its brevity at the cost of being nearly content-free.

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?

With a complex nested request body, a required name field, and deprecated fields like slug, the definition should say more than "from provided data." The output schema covers returns, but the description leaves too much of the input contract and mutation semantics unexplained.

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?

The single top-level parameter "data" has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description's "from provided data" is tautological. The nested schema documents individual fields like name and color, but the description does not explain the required structure or that name is mandatory.

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?

It states a concrete verb and resource ("Creates a new incident_type"), which is clear enough, but there is no differentiation from siblings like create_incident, update_incident_type, or create_catalog_property. The phrase "from provided data" adds no distinguishing information.

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, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as update_incident_type or list_incident_types. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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