resolve_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the state transition to Resolved and the required inputs, but fails to mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens after resolution. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. There is zero wasted text, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the key details. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward operation.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits guidance on valid resolution codes, the impact of resolution on related records, and how it differs from update_incident. An agent would lack critical context to invoke this tool reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only incident_id is described). The description mentions 'resolution code and notes' but does not clarify valid values for resolution_code, the format or purpose of resolution_notes, or how incident_id should be specified beyond the schema's generic hint. It adds minimal meaning over 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 clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'incident', and adds the specific outcome: 'sets state to Resolved with a resolution code and notes'. This is specific and distinguishable from generic update operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_incident beyond the state change.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_incident or add_comment. No prerequisites, context, or conditions for resolution are mentioned. An agent would have to infer the appropriate scenario from the name alone.

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