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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the side effects (emails subscribers, posts to Slack) and the state transition ('status resolved closes the incident'). This explains *why* destructiveHint=true. Doesn't mention irreversibility or that posted updates may not be retractable, which is the key risk of an externally-broadcast write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effects, then the usage gate, then the status semantics. No filler.

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 destructive, externally-broadcasting write with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers side effects and the usage gate but leaves the parameter contract and any reversibility/rate-limit info unaddressed.

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 0% – all four required parameters (slug, public_id, status, body) are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints at the 'status' parameter (resolved behavior) and never explains slug/public_id, nor gives the allowed status values despite status being the pivotal field.

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+resource ('Post an incident update') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update_incident by disclosing that this is the subscriber-facing publish action (emails + Slack). An agent can tell it apart from update_incident without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'Run only when the user asked to publish this update in this conversation.' This is a strong when-to-use guard. It doesn't name update_incident as the alternative for non-publishing edits, so it stops short of 5.

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