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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: immediate publication to status pages and the absence of subscriber notifications. It also implies reversibility via remove_* parameters, which is not stated in annotations but is consistent with idempotency.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second covers immediate effect and lack of notification, the third points to the alternative for notifying. Every sentence contributes, and the most critical info is front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description combined with the fully-documented schema and annotations gives an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly. It explains the primary use case, the behavioral nuance, and points to the sibling for notifications. No critical gap remains.

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%, with each parameter fully documented (enums, formats, constraints, references). The description's mention of 'title, type, status pages or affected services' maps directly to schema properties but adds no new semantic information. Per the baseline for full coverage, this is a 3.

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 ('Change') and resource ('status page incident'), and enumerates the mutable fields (title, type, status pages, affected services). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_status_page_incident, resolve_status_page_incident, and edit_status_page_incident_update, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 gives explicit usage context: changes take effect immediately but subscribers are not notified. It then names the alternative action ('post an update') for when notification is desired. This provides a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use distinction, covering the primary decision point.

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