create_vulnerable_item

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses the before-business-rule that silently clears the reference, the internal PATCH-and-verify workaround, that the result reports overwritten fields, and that WRITE_ENABLED=true is required. This is exactly the side-effect and prerequisite context annotations cannot convey.

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 core behavior and the reason for the tool, then layers caveats and the write prerequisite in bold. Sentences are long and dense with parenthetical detail, but every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers the crucial gaps: preconditions (WRITE_ENABLED), required fields and their rationale, silent field overwrites, and that the response reports overwritten fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining WHY `vulnerability` and `cmdb_ci` are both mandatory (the remediation rule engine needs them to group the item) and by steering tagging toward `source`. The short_description caveat largely restates the schema, keeping it below 5.

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 Vulnerable Item, sn_vul_vulnerable_item) and immediately distinguishes itself from the generic insert path by explaining it preserves the `vulnerability` reference that a business rule strips. An agent can tell exactly what this does and why it exists versus plain record creation.

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 makes clear when this tool is needed (whenever the vulnerability reference must survive insert so the remediation-task automation works) and warns against using short_description for tagging. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives such as add_vi_to_remediation_task or update_vulnerability, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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