update_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that work notes are visible to IT staff only, that setting state to Resolved is rejected, that impact/urgency changes recalculate priority, and that assigned_to and assignment_group must be known entities. It stops short of describing failure behavior or permissions, but the mutation and constraints are clearly conveyed.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then the internal-note visibility rule, then a compact but complete Args list, then routing guidance. Every sentence adds operational value; nothing is filler or repetition of the schema.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema description coverage, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers every parameter, gives exclusions, routes to alternatives, and explains the resolve rejection rationale. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with allowed values or constraints: state allowed values, impact/urgency range and side effect, work_note semantics, and the requirement that assigned_to and assignment_group be known users/groups.

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?

Description states 'Modify an existing incident's fields and/or add an INTERNAL work note', which is a specific verb plus resource and clear scope. It further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming resolve_incident and add_incident_comment as the tools for other actions.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for triage, reassignment, re-prioritisation and internal progress updates.' It also gives clear exclusions: 'Do NOT use this to resolve or close' and directs to resolve_incident and add_incident_comment for the appropriate alternatives.

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