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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by emphasizing that changes hit the 'LIVE public status page' and by giving the exact PUT endpoint. This warns the agent that modifications take effect publicly, which is useful beyond the structured annotation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then gives the endpoint and the affected fields. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 8 parameters fully described in the schema and a destructiveHint annotation present, the description covers the essential operation scope and public impact. It lacks an explicit note about the update response format and does not clarify the relationship with create_incident_update, but for actually invoking the call with correct parameters the definition is largely 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 bulk of parameter semantics lives in the schema. The description's field list (title/type/services/timing) mirrors several parameters but adds no new constraints or format details beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('UPDATES') and resource ('existing incident on the LIVE public status page'), and enumerates the changed fields (title/type/services/timing). It is clear enough to distinguish from create/delete/get/list siblings, though it does not explicitly demarkate from statuspal_create_incident_update, which could be confused with posting a new incident update entry.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies that this tool is for updating existing incident details, but it does not contrast it with the sibling statuspal_create_incident_update, which seems closely related and could be the right choice for appending a status update.

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