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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context – that this targets the LIVE account and that a resolution message is recorded – but says nothing about incident state transitions, reversibility, permissions, or rate limits for a mutating operation against production data.

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, zero filler, with the action and its scope stated before the raw API endpoint. Nothing is buried and nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the definition is minimally viable: an agent knows what to call and with which two parameters, but not what a successful resolution returns, whether it is reversible, or how failures surface. Adequate, with clearly visible gaps for a live-account mutation.

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% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase "recording a resolution message" clarifies the intent of the message parameter slightly, but adds no format, length, or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Resolve an incident") plus two meaningful qualifiers: it acts on the LIVE account and records a resolution message. That is enough to separate it from read-only siblings like get_incident and list_incidents, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, acknowledge_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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives. An agent must infer on its own why to resolve rather than acknowledge or add a note to the same incident.

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