unresolve_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, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the incident must be currently resolved. The example variables are the only behavioral clue and are insufficient.

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 prose portion is minimal but is followed by a large example block filled with extraneous variables. The description is not well-structured or front-loaded; it opens with a tautological phrase rather than a clear purpose.

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 state-changing mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of behavior, constraints, or side effects. The provided information is far from sufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 labels input as 'GraphQL: UnresolveIncidentInput!', but the description's example adds incidentId and reason fields, which provides useful parameter context. However, the example is cluttered with many irrelevant variables (filter, after, first, order), which could mislead an agent.

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 operation name as 'mutation unresolveIncident' without explaining that it changes an incident's resolved status. The example variables hint at incidentId and reason, but the core purpose is not explicitly stated and there's no differentiation from sibling incident mutations.

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, update_incident_state, or unresolve_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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