ops_incident_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional side effects ('post a closure update') and persistence ('persist the final resolution'), but fails to address idempotency, error handling when closing already-closed incidents, or the purpose of the dry_run and token_override parameters.

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 consists of a single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close a tracked incident') before listing optional modifiers. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and performs a destructive/terminal mutation, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks critical context about return values, error states, and the specific behavior of safety parameters like dry_run.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While it implicitly references 'resolution' and 'post_update' through phrases like 'final resolution' and 'post a closure update', it leaves five parameters (details, owner, dry_run, token_override, incident_id) completely undocumented, including critical behavioral flags.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') with a clear resource ('tracked incident'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ops_incident_create and ops_incident_update. However, it stops short of explicit lifecycle context (e.g., 'terminal state change') that would fully clarify its role in the incident workflow.

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 ops_incident_update, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the incident must be in a specific state before closing). There are no 'when-not' exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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