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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: Vigilia monitors real traffic afterward and reopens the incident as a regression if the error returns. This post-call lifecycle is the key non-obvious trait, though it says nothing about the immediate response or how long confirmation takes.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the action and then the pre-condition, with no filler. Every clause carries information: what to call it for, when, and what happens as a result.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent-facing questions: the precondition (fix must be deployed) and the consequence (traffic-watch and possible regression reopen). It leaves the immediate return value and any latency of confirmation unstated, a minor gap.

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?

There is one required parameter (incidentId) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about the identifier's format, provenance or how to obtain it, landing exactly at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Tell Vigilia an incident is fixed'), stated in plain operational terms rather than restating the name. It is clearly distinguished from read-side siblings like get_incident and get_fix_status by being a state transition, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance — 'call this after the fix is deployed — not just written' — which is a real when-to-use and implicit when-not-to-use condition. It does not point to a sibling tool for the case where the fix is merely written, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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