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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals a mutating operation, and the description adds the useful context that changes hit the LIVE public status page. However, it omits important behavioral details for an update: whether omitted fields stay unchanged, what notify actually does, and any auth/permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope before the API path. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and affected fields but leaves gaps around partial-update semantics (which fields change when omitted), the notify behavior, and the fact that the endpoint is a PUT. Adequate but not complete.

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 8 parameters, including the enum for type and the ISO8601 formats. The description lists the field groups (title/type/services/timing) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (UPDATES) and resource (existing incident) and names the fields affected (title/type/services/timing), plus the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from create/delete siblings via 'existing incident', but never explicitly contrasts with the close sibling statuspal_create_incident_update, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing incident but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as create_incident_update or create_incident. The agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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