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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), but the description adds real value beyond them: the state transitions (components to operational, incident to history), the HTTP endpoint, and critically that no notification fires unless a notify_* flag is enabled. It doesn't clarify what happens to in-flight notifications or the effect of incident_id on a history record.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the 'WRITE:' marker and the core action come first, followed by side effects and the notification caveat. The trailing 'POST /incident/resolve' is largely redundant with the schema, but overall the text is tight.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the critical behavioral facts (state changes, notification defaults) are present and correct. Missing only auth/permission expectations and confirmation of idempotency behavior, which the annotations already hint at.

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 the 11 parameters are already documented by the schema, and the description adds little parameter-specific detail. It does generalize the notify_* flags ('switch it on') and references the closing message, which maps to details, but adds no new syntax or semantic nuance.

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') and immediately clarifies the terminal outcome: components return to operational and the incident moves to history. This implicitly separates it from statusio_update_incident, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this to close out an incident. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. statusio_update_incident or statusio_finish_maintenance guidance, and no stated prerequisites, so an agent must infer the routing.

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