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. It clearly discloses the state transition to Resolved and the conditions required. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or downstream effects, but the core behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 description is well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, usage conditions and alternatives follow, then parameters are clearly listed. Every sentence adds necessary value with 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?

The description covers purpose, usage conditions, alternatives, and all parameter semantics despite the schema lacking descriptions. It does not detail response format or authorization, but an output schema exists and the operation is straightforward for a resolution action.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it defines 'number' as the incident number, enumerates all valid close_code values, and gives detailed guidance for close_notes including the minimum length requirement.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Resolve an incident') and immediately clarifies that this is the only correct way to move an incident to Resolved, distinguishing it from update_incident and other sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Only resolve when the underlying problem is actually fixed or a permanent workaround is in place') and when not to, directing the agent to update_incident with state 'On Hold' for paused work.

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