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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it MODIFIES live status-page data, may notify subscribers, uses partial-update semantics, and returns the updated incident. It does not mention auth requirements or any irreversibility/rate-limit caveats, keeping it below a 5.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the mutation side effect. The API endpoint and return note each add distinct value.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation risk, notification side effect, patch semantics, and return value, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It leaves the relationship between the components and statuses arrays unexplained, a minor omission against a fully documented schema.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions and an enum for status, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'send only the fields you want to change' adds partial-update semantics but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and it does not explain the components vs. statuses interplay.

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 ('UPDATES an existing incident by id') and identifies the underlying API operation (PUT /v1/{page_id}/incidents/{incident_id}). The 'existing incident' scoping plus the id requirement distinguishes it cleanly from instatus_create_incident and instatus_get_incident.

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?

Provides a clear operational instruction — 'Send only the fields you want to change' — which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a partial update, and gives concrete examples of target states (MONITORING, RESOLVED). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'use instatus_create_incident for new incidents'), so it does not reach a 5.

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