Post incident update

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully adds that the update is PUBLIC (customer-visible) and that componentStatus is propagated to components. It still omits the subscriber-notification side effect, which is the highest-impact behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional componentStatus side effect placed second. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and the componentStatus side effect adequately. It leaves the notify-customer behavior to the schema, which is acceptable, though a note on public visibility risk would round it out.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds the transition example for status and the conditional application of componentStatus, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a public update to an incident') and clarifies the meaning with a concrete status-transition example. Distinguishes itself from read tools, but does not differentiate from the sibling resolve_incident given that RESOLVED is part of the status enum.

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 example ('move from INVESTIGATING to IDENTIFIED') implies when this tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as resolve_incident for the terminal transition. Usage is only indirectly conveyed.

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