Create Severity

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement about duplicate-name behavior, what a 'severity' represents in this domain, whether notification fields (notify_emails, slack_channels) take effect immediately, or side effects of creation.

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 digression, but it is under-specified rather than concise: 'from provided data' occupies space without conveying anything an agent can act on.

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 create tool wrapping a deeply nested request object with a required name and a criticality enum, plus idempotent=false, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but nothing here covers duplicate handling, required-field emphasis, or the domain meaning of a severity.

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?

Only one top-level parameter exists, with 0% schema description coverage at that level; the nested attribute properties do carry individual descriptions, but the description text itself contributes nothing to interpretation. It does not explain what the required 'name' does, that 'severity' is the criticality enum, or that 'slug' is deprecated and ignored.

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 verb+resource ('Creates a new severity') is identifiable, but the qualifier 'from provided data' is empty filler that adds nothing. It never distinguishes this from siblings such as update_severity or get_severity, so an agent must infer the create-vs-update boundary from the name alone.

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 call this versus update_severity (for an existing severity) or list_severities (to check whether one already exists). With idempotentHint=false there is a real risk of duplicate creation, and nothing here warns about that or tells the agent to look up first.

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