open_incident

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations don't: the call may return a pre-existing open incident for the same services rather than creating a new one. It stops short of saying whether notifications fire or what happens to the incident lifecycle.

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?

A single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a useful parenthetical; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of being thin, but structurally it is well formed.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits severity options, what the returned incident looks like, and whether side effects such as owner notification occur. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or correctly on the first try.

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% across four parameters, and the description compensates only by implication ('for these services' gestures at impacted_services). Title, symptom, and the severity default of SEV2 with no enumerated levels are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not close the gap.

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 ('open') and resource ('incident') with a scope qualifier ('in the graph'), which distinguishes it from resolve_incident and explain_incident. It doesn't name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical implies the correct context (when you want to open an incident for a set of services) and hints at the dedup case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like find_similar_incidents before opening.

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