Open an incident

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and non-destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds the key consequence: the incident is published publicly on the status page and wording should be drafted with the user first. It doesn't detail permission requirements or whether a draft (publish=false) can be edited later, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the create action, then scoping detail, then the workflow caution. The componentStatus default repeats the schema, a minor redundancy, but overall tight.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the public-facing consequence, default component status, and a caution about drafting wording. Remaining gaps (pagination/return shape not needed; auth/permissions) are modest given the rich annotations and full schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented with descriptions and defaults. The description only restates the componentStatus default (PARTIALOUTAGE), which the schema already provides, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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+resource (publish a new incident) and scope (public status page), which cleanly separates it from siblings like post_incident_update, resolve_incident, and delete_incident. An agent can identify the create action without opening the schema.

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 line 'Draft the wording with the user before publishing' gives useful procedural advice for this specific workflow, and the schema reinforces confirming before notifying subscribers. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., post_incident_update for later updates) or any exclusions.

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