create_remediation_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds one genuinely useful operator fact beyond that: creation is gated behind WRITE_ENABLED=true. It does not say what happens on duplicate short_description, which fields are required in practice, or how the new task relates to findings.

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 compact clauses with the resource and the write-gate constraint front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is, if anything, under-specified rather than padded.

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 single-record mutation with a rich 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition covers identity and the write precondition but omits return value (sys_id?), whether reopening/validation applies, and the typical follow-up attachment to vulnerability entries, leaving real gaps.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters including the state enum values are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a Remediation Task') and pins the underlying table (sn_vul_remediation_task). It does not differentiate from near-siblings such as add_vi_to_remediation_task or create_vulnerable_item, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other creation tools, no prerequisites beyond the write flag, and no note that a vulnerability entry (sn_vul_entry) is typically attached afterwards via add_vi_to_remediation_task.

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