update_incident

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'updates' an incident, implying mutation, but does not reveal what side effects occur (e.g., whether all provided fields are updated, what happens if the incident does not exist, whether permissions are required, or what the response format is). This is a significant gap for a mutating tool with no other behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, and the key identifier info (sys_id or number) is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with this many parameters; it omits necessary detail. It is well-structured but under-informative, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 7% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which fields are updatable, how they should be formatted, any relationships between fields (e.g., state transitions), or expected behavior. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the current description and schema alone.

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 7% (only 'incident_id' has a description). The tool has 14 parameters, and the description adds no information about the other 13 (state, impact, urgency, etc.). It merely repeats the incident_id description already present in the schema. With such low coverage, the description should have listed or explained the updatable fields, but it does not, leaving agents without guidance on how to fill them.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing incident'), and specifies that it accepts sys_id or incident number. This is a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'resolve_incident', which is also an update operation but specific to resolution. The generic nature of 'update' is implied but not contrasted.

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 beyond the action itself. The description does not state when to use this tool versus 'resolve_incident' or other incident-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing incident ID) or context. An agent would have to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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