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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the key consequence that resolving is a status-page-visible action and demands user confirmation — real behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not say whether resolving is reversible or how to un-resolve.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the guard condition and the reason for it. 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 simple 2-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is what the call returns and whether the note is publicly visible, but with no output schema that is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden; it does explain the purpose of `note` (optional, describes the fix) but says nothing about `incidentId` format or the 1000-char limit on note. Partial compensation only.

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 ("Mark an incident as resolved") plus the optional accompanying field. It is distinguishable from siblings like acknowledge_incident and diagnose_incident by the terminal-status semantics, though it never names them explicitly.

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 precondition: only call when the user confirms the underlying issue is fixed. That is a strong when-to-call signal, but no alternatives (e.g., acknowledge_incident, diagnose_incident) are mentioned for cases where the fix isn't confirmed.

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