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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the description's job is narrower. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: editing an update produces 'no new notification,' and the tool should only be run on explicit user request. It does not address what destructive=true means in practice (e.g., whether omitted/null fields wipe existing values).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the alternative routing. No filler; every clause carries operational 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 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It never explains what happens to unset fields, what component_ids does, whether status actually works here, or what confirmation the caller gets back — all questions an agent must answer before invoking a destructive edit.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only covers title, impact, update_id and update_body; slug, public_id, body and component_ids get nothing. Worse, it tells the agent to use a different tool to change 'status' while the schema still exposes a status property, leaving that parameter's meaning genuinely ambiguous.

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 ('Edit an incident's title or impact') and names the sibling, post_incident_update, that handles the other cases. The stated scope is narrower than reality though: the schema exposes status, body and component_ids, so the one-line purpose undersells and partly misdescribes the tool.

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?

Explicitly sets a precondition ('Run only when the user asked'), gives the when-not case ('To change status, post a message, or resolve, use post_incident_update instead'), and explains the alternate mode (update_id + update_body rewrites the posted update's message). An agent has everything needed to route correctly.

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