Close an incident and write its root cause service, summary, and change ID into incident memory so future investigations reuse the knowledge.
Close the incident and write what was learned into incident memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | ||
| incident_id | Yes | ||
| root_cause_service | Yes | ||
| root_cause_change_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that resolving also writes learnings into incident memory, but it does not disclose consequences of the non-idempotent flag (e.g., duplicate memory entries on retry) or 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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though given the undocumented parameter burden a little more detail would have earned its place.
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 state-changing, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and four undocumented parameters, the description is thin. It conveys the purpose and one side effect but omits required-input meaning, retry/idempotency behavior, and what resolution changes about the incident's state.
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% with 4 parameters (3 required), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only loosely hints at 'summary' via 'what was learned' and never mentions incident_id or root_cause_service, leaving required inputs undocumented in both places.
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 ('Close') and resource ('the incident'), plus a secondary effect ('write what was learned into incident memory'). It reasonably differentiates from the sibling open_incident by implying finality, though it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the tool you call when an incident is over and you have a root cause. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as explain_incident or verify_recovery that an agent might confuse with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.