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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that 'competent authority must be notified of reclassification,' which is a meaningful side-effect. However, other potential behaviors—such as updating the incident record, reversibility, or consequences—are not disclosed, leaving notable gaps.

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 a model of conciseness: two short sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds a crucial requirement, ensuring every word earns its place.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key notification requirement. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning that the incident is updated and perhaps that the reason field is for documentation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does mention the classification values MAJOR/NON-MAJOR, but these are already visible in the schema's enum. It offers no explanation of incident_id or the optional reason parameter, adding minimal value beyond the structured 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reclassifying an incident between MAJOR and NON-MAJOR. It uses a specific verb (reclassify) and resource (incident), and the phrase 'or vice versa' clarifies bidirectional capability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool classify_incident, which may handle initial classification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it applies to existing incidents or how it differs from classifies_incident. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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