Resolve incident

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), and the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the cascade: a RESOLVED update plus mass component reset to OPERATIONAL. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens to components already operational.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and the two side effects after. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the outcome shape. Combined with fully documented parameters and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though permission/edge-case behavior remains unstated.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including the notable subscriber-notification warning on 'notify' and the message default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 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 (Resolve) and resource (incident), and uniquely explains what the operation actually does — posts a RESOLVED update and flips affected components to OPERATIONAL. This clearly separates it from siblings like post_incident_update or set_component_status, which each perform only half of the work.

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 phrase 'in one step' implies this is the preferred composite action over manually posting an update plus resetting components, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is only indirectly inferable from the sibling set.

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