close_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (resolve/cancel) and lists close codes, but does not mention permanence, required permissions, side effects on the incident, or what the response looks like. The example adds usage detail but not behavioral context.

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 the purpose, then provides structured parameter details, enum values, and an example. It is somewhat dense but every sentence adds value; no filler words. An example is included, which improves usability without being redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the request structure thoroughly and includes an example. However, it does not explain return values, error cases, or when to prefer this over sibling close/state tools. It is nearly complete for the core 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?

The schema only provides a bare type name ('GraphQL: CloseIncidentRequest') and a header override note. The description compensates richly by detailing the request fields (incidentId, state, closeCode, closeNote), enumerating all allowed close codes, and giving a concrete JSON example. This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Resolve or cancel an incident' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_incident_state or acknowledge_incident by specifying the RESOLVED/CANCELLED states and close codes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to close incidents by providing state and close code options, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like bulk_close_incidents or acknowledge_assign_and_close_incident. Context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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