Create Sub Status

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description carries a lighter burden, but it adds nothing beyond them: no duplicate-handling, no permission requirements, and no explanation of how the created record relates to its parent.

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 with no repetition, but "from provided data" is dead weight and the length reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 and the annotations mean returns and safety need not be explained, but for a create tool with a nested required payload and a domain-specific enum, the description omits the two things an agent actually needs: the sibling it differs from and the meaning of parent_status.

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 description coverage is 0% — only the deprecated `slug` field carries any schema text — and the description says nothing about the payload. The most consequential ambiguity, what `parent_status` (started vs retrospective) means and how it constrains the new sub-status, is left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new Sub-Status"), so the basic action is unambiguous, but the trailing "from provided data" is pure filler and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling creators, notably create_incident_sub_status and update_sub_status.

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 versus create_incident_sub_status, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing parent incident/status), and no mention of what happens when a sub-status with the same name exists. The reader is left to infer everything from the name.

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