resolve_incident

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 only says the incident must be active and a solution is required; it omits side effects such as status changes, behavior on already-resolved incidents, idempotency, permissions, or any consequences beyond applying the solution. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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 single sentence is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler – every word contributes to the core purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail that could be conveyed without bloating, so it is efficient rather than ideal.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists, the agent lacks guidance on how resolve_incident differs from update_incident, preconditions, and parameter semantics. The description covers only the basic verb and a single requirement.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it only mentions that a solution is required and applied. It does not clarify that incident_id identifies the target, what note is for, or what format/meaning solution should have. The schema provides only types and lengths, leaving the agent without semantic grounding.

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 states a clear verb ('Resolve') and resource ('active incident') and notes a required component ('solution'), making the core action understandable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'update_incident' or other incident tools, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'active incident' implies a precondition, but the description does not mention alternatives like 'update_incident' for modifying details, nor what to do if the incident is not active. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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