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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states the operation is not read-only, confirms the internal-only status page behavior, and explains the confirmation/authorization behavior ('Asks for confirmation where the client can show a prompt; otherwise runs on the token's scope'). This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the destructiveHint or idempotentHint.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavioral caveats and a scope clarification. Every sentence contributes useful information for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the 100% schema coverage, and the annotations describing read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness, the description adds the remaining essential context: internal scope, public status page exclusion, and confirmation behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the internal-only nature of the note, which is already documented in the schema, and does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The required 'id' parameter is also already described adequately in the schema.

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 and resource ('Resolve an incident') and clarifies the exact meaning with 'mark the operational state resolved.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'Internal only — does not post to the public status page,' which differentiates it from publish_incident and related public-facing tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: resolving an incident internally without public status page impact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'Internal only' and 'does not post to the public status page' exclusions effectively guide tool selection among siblings like publish_incident and post_incident_update.

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