open_incident

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that it pages the on-call engineer, requires a non-read-only scope, and rejects read-only callers. This adds important behavioral context about side effects and access control that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 only three sentences, opens with the primary action, and then provides essential usage warnings. Every sentence serves a purpose; no filler or redundant content.

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 simple action tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the key context: it states the purpose, the real-world side effect, the required scope, and the need for human confirmation. Nothing important is missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no explanation of the parameters or how to choose severity. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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?

"File an incident" is a specific verb + resource, clearly identifying the action. It stands out unambiguously from the read-only sibling tools like list_services and query_logs.

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 gives explicit guidance: "use it deliberately" and "Prefer confirming with a human before calling." It also notes the incidents:write scope requirement and that it is the only tool with a real-world side effect, strongly signaling when it should—and should not—be used.

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