FogBugz

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true). The description adds value by specifying it's for FogBugz cases and includes an example, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'destructive' entails (e.g., irreversible creation). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise, illustrative example that reinforces usage. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive write), annotations cover safety, and schema covers inputs well. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., case ID or confirmation). It's mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning response details.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics through the example (e.g., 'priority 2'), but doesn't provide extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Creates a new FogBugz case') and resource ('case'), and the example provides concrete differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_case' or 'assign_case' by showing it's for initial creation. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 implies usage for creating new cases, with the example suggesting typical scenarios (e.g., bug creation). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_case' for modifications or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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