retain_incident

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a mutation requiring authorization, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. The example variables are misleading, suggesting parameters (filter, after, order) that are not part of this mutation's schema.

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 short but wasteful. The example variables are a large block of irrelevant JSON that distracts from the actual purpose. It lacks a clear, front-loaded definition and instead buries the only useful piece ('Variables: id') in clutter.

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 simple mutation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description should still state the action's effect, typical usage, and any required context. The current text is incomplete and misleading, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for the two parameters, the description's example variables include extraneous fields (filter, after, order) that are not valid for this tool. This actively introduces confusion about the parameter set rather than adding value beyond the schema.

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 merely restates the tool name as 'mutation retainIncident' without explaining what retaining an incident does. There is no verb+resource definition beyond the name itself, making it a tautology.

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 like close_incident or acknowledge_incident. There is no mention of the intended workflow or context, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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