Api incidents update

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

Annotations already declare a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write (readOnlyHint=false), yet the description frames the tool as an export mixin, which implies a read. It adds zero context about what the update changes, whether a partial body is accepted, or permission requirements, and its framing conflicts with the declared write semantics.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no bloat, but brevity does not help when the sentence contains no relevant information. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 endpoint with two parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description should explain the target resource, the updatable fields, and the write semantics. It provides none of that and instead describes an unrelated export mixin.

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%, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied for the required 'id' and the free-form 'body' object. It says nothing about either, leaving the agent with an opaque anyOf body it cannot populate correctly.

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 reads "Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports", which describes an export/CSV-XLSX concern rather than updating an incident via its id. It is actively misleading about the tool's operation and gives no usable verb+resource pairing, despite the name and title pointing at an incidents update.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_incidents_partial_update, incidents_update, or incidents_batch_action_create. What text exists points at a completely different activity (exporting), so it steers the agent wrong.

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