Delete incident

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying the blast radius (history is removed too) and irreversibility ('Cannot be undone, so confirm first').

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the permanence/blast-radius warning front-loaded and the confirmation requirement attached. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, the description covers what an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and to confirm first. Minor gaps remain around side effects on linked incident updates or components, but nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters carry their own descriptions pointing at list_status_pages and list_incidents. The description adds no meaning about pageId or incidentId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (delete an incident) plus scope detail ('and its history from the status page'), which separates it from the non-destructive sibling resolve_incident. It does not explicitly name resolve_incident as the alternative, so the routing is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

Provides one useful operational guideline – confirm before calling, since the action is irreversible – but never states when to delete versus resolving or archiving via siblings like resolve_incident. Usage context is implied by the destructive nature rather than explained.

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