bulk_close_incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation a 'mutation,' indicating a write, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the impact on incident status. The example shows 'state: RESOLVED' but does not explain the behavioral consequences.

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 very short and front-loaded with the mutation name, but it is under-specified. The example is useful, yet the overall structure feels like a code comment rather than a complete tool description. No unnecessary sentences, but more substance is needed.

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?

This is a mutation with nested input and an output schema absent. The description does not explain the return value, required nested fields, or relationship to sibling incident tools. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate for confident invocation.

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?

The schema only documents top-level parameters with 'input' as a GraphQL type, providing no nested structure. The example variables add value by illustrating the inner fields (aiChatId, closeCode, closeNote, incidentIds, state), giving the agent a concrete template beyond schema coverage.

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 'Incidents · mutation bulkCloseIncidents' largely restates the tool name without using a clear verb like 'Bulk-close incidents.' The example variables hint at the operation but do not explicitly state what the mutation does. It does not distinguish from the sibling 'close_incident' tool beyond the word 'bulk' in the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'close_incident' or 'update_incident_state'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using this bulk operation.

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