create_grc_indicator

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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real value beyond them: the live-confirmed business-rule rejection with HTTP 403 and the WRITE_ENABLED=true governance gate. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious write behavior an agent needs. Minor gap: no mention of side effects such as indicator results being generated or of what a successful response contains.

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?

Front-loads the tool's identity, then the two parameter traps, then the write gate — a sensible ordering for an agent. Every sentence carries information; the only mild stretch is the extended explanation of why no separate lookup is needed, though that is genuinely useful context.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description covers the high-risk elements: required-parameter sourcing, the entity scoping rule, the 403 failure mode, and the write-enablement gate. The remaining gap is only around optional field values and post-create behavior, which are lower risk for correct invocation.

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 29% (2 of 7 params documented), so the description must compensate — and it does well for the two required params: `item` is explained as a direct sys_id usage because both parent tables share a base table, and `entity` is tied to the item's `profile` field. However, the five optional params (owner, category, owning_group, short_description, collection_frequency) get no semantic treatment in either the schema or the description, leaving the compensation partial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair plus the underlying table name (sn_grc_indicator), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling read/update tools list_grc_indicators, get_grc_indicator and update_grc_indicator. An agent knows exactly what record type is being created.

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 states the prerequisites that trip up callers: `item` must be an EXISTING sn_compliance_control or sn_risk_risk record, and `entity` must be the specific entity that item is scoped to. It also warns that a validation business rule returns HTTP 403 for mismatched entities, which is actionable when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to discover the required sys_ids, so not a full 5.

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