create_compliance_control

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false and destructive=false, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate and the platform quirk that implementation_statement is dictionary-mandatory but silently blanked by the REST layer if omitted. That is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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, purpose first, then the single highest-risk pitfall, then a bolded write-gate flag. Dense and front-loaded with essentially no padding, though the banner could be moved earlier if it is the primary gate.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a low-coverage 8-parameter schema, the description covers the one dramatic trap well but leaves an agent guessing about most field semantics and about what a successful response looks like. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 only 25% and 8 parameters exist, so the description must compensate and does not. It elaborates only on implementation_statement (already described in the schema) and says nothing about owner, profile, category, frequency, key_control, or what `name` accepts.

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 (Create a Compliance Control) and names the backing table sn_compliance_control, which lets an agent place it among the GRC write tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_compliance_control or create_compliance_policy, though the name does most of that work.

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 write-flag banner signals a precondition and the 'create' verb implies when it applies, but there is no statement of when to use this rather than update_compliance_control or create_compliance_policy, nor any prerequisites beyond WRITE_ENABLED.

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