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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is already lowered, yet the description still adds real value: it emphasizes that live incident state CHANGES and maps the call to the underlying POST /incidents/priority endpoint with its payload shape. It stays silent on batch semantics (partial failures, unknown ids) and permissions, which keeps it from 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and mutation warning front-loaded before the endpoint detail. The endpoint/payload clause is mildly redundant with the schema but useful for an API-backed integration, so it is not wasted space.

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?

With destructiveHint covering the safety profile and no output schema needed, the description is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity. The remaining gap is batch behavior — whether setting priority across multiple ids is atomic or can partially fail — which an agent calling this at scale would want to know.

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 ids, teamId and the priority enum are fully documented structurally. The description reinforces the p1..p5 range and the plural/multi-incident nature of ids but adds no syntax, ordering, or scoping detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 — sets priority p1..p5 on one or more incidents — and explicitly flags that this mutates live incident state. That distinguishes it cleanly from read siblings (spike_get_incident, spike_list_incidents) and from other state changers like spike_acknowledge_incidents and spike_resolve_incidents.

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 makes clear this is a state-changing operation but never says when to choose it over the other mutation siblings (acknowledge, resolve) or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only implied by the verb and the warning, so it lands at minimum-viable guidance.

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