incidents_update_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable nuances: 'Missing fields are ignored', validation of assigned_user_mail, and special values ('none' or empty string) for unassignment and severity clearing. This goes beyond the basic 'Update' verb, though it omits auth requirements, response format, or reversibility.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief opening sentence followed by bullet-point notes. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps critical usage tips compact. The HTTP endpoint and context line are minimal and non-redundant.

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 update tool with a nested schema and no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral notes (ignored fields, unassignment, severity removal) that are not obvious from the schema. It lacks response format or error handling, but the schema's detailed property descriptions compensate, making the overall specification fairly 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 0% per context, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does add guidance for assigned_user_mail and manual_severity (using 'none' or empty strings), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain other parameters like status, comment, or notes, leaving gaps that the schema descriptions partially fill.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an Incident'), with a specific scope: 'Update one or more fields of a specific incident.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like incidents_get_incidents or incidents_get_incident_extra_data, which focus on reading rather than modifying.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, including that missing fields are ignored, how to unassign an incident, and how to remove a manual severity. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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