create_incident

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can create or append to incidents, but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then specific parameter behavior. Efficient 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?

Has output schema (not shown) so return values are covered. Covers purpose and key parameters, but lacks explanation of error scenarios or what happens to existing incident data. Adequate for a moderately complex tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'incident_id' and 'server' parameters well. 'alert_ids' is implied but not detailed. 'name' and 'source' are not described. Adds value beyond schema but could be more complete.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an incident from a list of alert ids (or add them to an existing one).' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_incident or change_incident_status by specifying creation/append functionality.

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 usage guidance: use 'incident_id=0' for new incident or set an existing id to append. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear. Could mention alternatives like change_incident_status but is adequate.

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