release_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 only notes that this is a mutation, implying a change, but gives no details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'releasing' an incident entails.

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 core description is only one line, but it is followed by a large example variables block full of irrelevant fields. This is not concise and detracts from the actual parameter information.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is almost entirely empty of behavioral context. It never explains what release_incident does, when to use it, or what the outcome is.

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 already describes both parameters (id and customer_slug), so the baseline is 3. However, the description's example variables block includes fields not present in the schema (filter, after, first, etc.), which is misleading and adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 only says "Incidents · mutation releaseIncident", which is essentially a restatement of the tool's name and domain. It does not explain what 'release' means in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like close_incident or unresolve_incident.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any mention of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternatives might be preferred.

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