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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world, so mutation semantics are partly covered. The description adds that root cause analysis fields get updated alongside the status change, which is useful. It does not say whether resolving is reversible, what happens if the incident is already resolved, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, the action is front-loaded, and the usage sentence follows without preamble. The second sentence slightly restates the first ('close it' vs 'marks as resolved') but remains efficient.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what to supply but is silent on the notable fact that zero parameters are marked required — an agent gets no warning that an incident identifier is effectively needed and that id versus incident_id must be disambiguated.

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%, so the schema already explains id, root_cause, and the incident_id alias, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that root cause should contain the fix steps taken, but adds no format or precedence guidance for the id/incident_id alias pair.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: marking an ongoing incident resolved and recording root cause details. It is clearly distinct from monitoring tools, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling acknowledge_incident or resolve_server_warning, so an agent must infer which of the three to pick at the boundary.

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 an explicit trigger condition — use it when you have diagnosed an incident and want to close it and record the fix steps. It omits when *not* to use it (e.g. merely acknowledging vs actually resolving), which is the one gap.

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