manage_dlp_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a mutable, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about 'remediation actions' and 'user notifications' that suggests behavioral aspects beyond the annotations, but doesn't detail side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating investigation from management aspects. Every phrase adds value, making it appropriately concise for a multi-action tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutable actions, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or action-specific behaviors (e.g., what 'resolve' entails). With no output schema, more context on expected results would improve completeness.

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%, providing full documentation of all 6 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying the tool handles incidents, which aligns with parameters like 'incidentId' and 'action'. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., 'dateRange' with 'action=list') or add usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('investigate and manage') and resources ('DLP policy violations and incidents'), including scope ('user notifications and remediation actions'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'manage_dlp_policies' by focusing on incidents rather than policies, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to sibling tools like 'manage_alerts' or 'search_audit_log' that might overlap with incident investigation. Usage is implied through the action parameter but not explicitly stated.

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