create_incident

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds the prerequisite condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., created record sys_id) or mention side effects like notifications, leaving behavioral transparency adequate but not excellent.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical condition, containing zero unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but does not explain return values or typical usage flow. Given the complexity, a bit more context (e.g., 'Returns the sys_id of the created incident') would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it does not compensate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema richness.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'incident record', making the purpose unmistakable. It also mentions the prerequisite condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which further clarifies the tool's use. Given the sibling tools (update_incident, close_incident, etc.), it effectively distinguishes itself.

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 provides one key prerequisite ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful but does not offer broader guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_incident or resolve_incident. No comparison to siblings or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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