yaaif_ops_diagnosis_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature (append-only), the confirmation requirement, the permission requirement, and that it doesn't affect run execution. It also implies a process of presenting the full draft. This is transparent about side effects and prerequisites, though it doesn't describe return values (but no output schema is provided).

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 three short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding prerequisites. Every sentence adds information; no fluff.

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 complexity (30 params, 11 required, nested objects) and very low schema coverage, the description is far from sufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes the full draft, how to fill the required fields, or what the append-only record expects. An agent would have to infer most parameters, which is risky for a create operation.

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 only 7%, so the description must compensate for the 30 parameters. It only mentions confirm=true, which is already described in the schema ('Must be true after explicit user confirmation'). It adds no meaning to other required fields like intent, severity, failures, etc. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 states a specific verb ('write') and resource ('OpsDiagnosisRecord') and explicitly notes it is append-only. It also clarifies it does not pause/stop/approve/retry runs, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like yaaif_ambient_run_pause or yaaif_ops_diagnosis_list/get.

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?

Provides clear context: requires confirm=true after presenting the full draft, and requires ops.support.write permission. It also states exclusions (does not pause/stop/approve/retry runs). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool beyond the exclusion list.

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