update_incident_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the fields and gives an example, but omits side effects, permission requirements, whether the state change is reversible, or what the response looks like. The description is mostly structural, not behavioral.

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 opens with a clear purpose, then provides the input structure and an example. The example JSON is somewhat verbose but useful for understanding the exact format. It is compact enough, though slightly dense.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps: it does not enumerate all valid state values, clarify whether the comment is required, explain the customer_slug override, or relate this tool to specialized incident actions like close_incident or acknowledge_incident. Adequate but incomplete.

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 says 'GraphQL: UpdateIncidentStateInput!' for the input parameter, but the description unpacks the nested fields (incidentId, state, comment) and provides a complete example with variable syntax. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though customer_slug is not explained beyond its own schema description.

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 clearly states 'Change an incident's state' with concrete examples (PENDING_RQ, PENDING_CUSTOMER), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target different resources (e.g., update_drp_alert_state) or specialized actions (e.g., close_incident). The verb+resource is specific and actionable.

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 intended use is implied: use this to change an incident's state. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over specialized state transition tools like acknowledge_incident or close_incident, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. Clear context exists but lacks differentiation.

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