create_grc_entity

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly write operation, but the description adds important operational context: WRITE_ENABLED=true is required, owned_by is dictionary-mandatory yet not enforced by the REST API, and profile_class must be a valid class sys_id. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides only high-value constraints and warnings. The write prerequisite is clearly bracketed at the end, and there is little wasted text.

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 7 parameters, the description covers the main creation pitfalls, required discovery workflow, and write prerequisite. It could be stronger by mentioning the expected response or clarifying the remaining optional fields, but it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, and the description adds substantial meaning for the critical profile_class and owned_by parameters, including valid-value discovery and the consequence of omission. It does not clarify framework, functional_domain, or description, but it materially improves the most important parameters.

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 GRC Entity in sn_grc_profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/update tools such as list_grc_entities, get_grc_entity, and update_grc_entity.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to discover valid profile_class values via list_grc_entities with no filter or query_records on sn_grc_profile_class. It also advises setting owned_by to avoid creating an unowned entity, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool.

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