create_investigation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the access_token is returned exactly once and cannot be recovered, and encryption at rest uses a key derived from that token. This information is essential for the agent to handle the response correctly and warn about token loss.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose; the second highlights the critical token behavior and encryption detail. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the essential context for a creation tool: what it does, the crucial return value (access_token), and an important security behavior (encryption at rest). For a create operation, this is sufficient and complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for id, name, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with 'Create a new investigation,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_investigation, update_investigation_metadata, seal_investigation, and delete_investigation.

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 clearly indicates this is for creating a new investigation, which is obviously distinct from the update, get, and delete siblings. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the creation context is unmistakable and the token warning implies this is a one-time setup action.

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