Update Incident Severity Level

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

The description does not disclose that updating fields like email_trigger or push_notification_trigger may trigger actual notifications, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations (with openWorldHint=true) imply. It only states the return value, missing important side effects.

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 concise with 4 sentences, but includes redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Updates' and the required parameters). It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be more streamlined without sacrificing completeness.

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?

The description covers the purpose, required parameters, and return object, but lacks discussion on potential side effects like notification triggers or how changes affect incidents. Given the presence of triggered fields, more context would improve completeness.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only adds that company_id and id are required, which is already in the schema, thus adding no meaningful extra meaning beyond what is already provided.

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 it updates a specified Incident Severity Level, but contains a typo referring to 'Incidents' instead of 'Severity Levels', which causes minor confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_incident, but the specificity of 'severity_level' in the name helps.

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 description advises to use this tool for updating existing severity levels and notes that only supplied fields are changed, indicating partial updates. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar operations, such as creating or listing severity levels.

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