clm_incident_command_create_incident

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of side-effect disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the incident is linked, shipment counts are recalculated, a background command queues thumbnail generation, and PDF regeneration may be triggered for completed shipments—valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by the side effects and conditional background behavior. Every clause adds information needed for safe invocation.

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?

The description is strong on behavioral context and return values are covered by the output schema, but the tool has six nested fields with zero schema descriptions and incomplete parameter guidance. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably fill all parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to Files and ShipmentId. Type, ItemId, Remark, and IncidentType are never defined, leaving an agent unable to construct the params object correctly with confidence.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Creates a new incident/finding against a CLM, KonsHub, or equipment-booking shipment.' It also states the linking and count-recalculation behavior, and the verb 'creates' clearly separates it from sibling update/delete/get incident tools.

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?

The description provides clear context—an agent should use this when an incident/finding needs to be created and attached to a shipment. It does not mention explicit when-not-to-use cases or named alternatives, but the creation semantics make the intended use unambiguous.

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