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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the update message becomes public immediately, and subscriber/channel notifications are off by default unless notify_* flags are set. Annotations already declare the destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write profile, so this additional notification behavior is valuable but not exhaustive.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' to signal the operation type. The public immediacy, notification default, alternative tool, and endpoint are all stated without waste.

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?

Covers purpose, key side effects, notification defaults, and the primary alternative for closing incidents. With no output schema, it need not explain return values. It could mention what happens to existing incident state or component statuses in more detail, but it is largely complete for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters including enum meanings and notify_* defaults. The description reinforces the notify_* behavior but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 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: 'post a new update message on an existing incident and set its state and component status.' It also names the sibling tool for closing incidents, so an agent can distinguish this from statusio_resolve_incident without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for closing incidents ('To close an incident use statusio_resolve_incident'). It provides clear context for posting updates, but does not compare against other mutation siblings like statusio_create_incident or statusio_update_component_status.

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