scf_create_engagement_query

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that this is a write operation, requires specific permissions, and depends on the control being in frozen scope. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the response or side effects in detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then the role requirement and the frozen-scope constraint. There is no filler or redundant wording; every clause carries useful information.

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 mutation tool with five required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, permission model, and key scope precondition, while the schema covers parameter semantics. It leaves minor gaps such as what the successful response looks like, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions, including format constraints and sourcing guidance like 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Raise') and a specific resource ('auditor query against one control in the engagement's scope'). It clearly communicates the create action and distinguishes it from sibling query tools like scf_respond_to_engagement_query and scf_update_engagement_query_status.

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 states clear preconditions: the control must be in the engagement's frozen scope, and the user must have editor role or be an assigned auditor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose and constraints give an agent enough context to decide when to use this tool.

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