create_grc_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate — but says nothing about side effects, required permissions beyond the flag, or duplicate prevention for a non-idempotent create.

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 tight sentences with the write gate front-loaded in bold, no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: field meaning, valid value ranges, whether related Entity profile is mandatory in practice, and what the created issue's identifier looks like on return.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and provides none — it explains no field semantics at all. Terms like impact, urgency, classification, and issue_type are undocumented in both places, leaving an agent to guess at acceptable values and formats.

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 Issue') and names the underlying table (sn_grc_issue), which cleanly separates it from list_grc_issues, get_grc_issue, and update_grc_issue. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 only guidance is the inline write-gate notice, which tells the agent a precondition exists but not when to choose this tool over update_grc_issue or create_risk. There are no exclusions, no mention of what a GRC issue is for, and no workflow context.

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