Update Project Incident Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it performs a partial update and returns the modified object. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful 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 three sentences and efficiently communicates the purpose, update behavior, and required parameter. Minor redundancy ('Update the selected project Incident configuration values' vs 'Updates the specified Incidents') does not detract significantly.

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 includes the return value (modified object) and API endpoint reference. For a simple update tool with good annotations, it is fairly complete, though error conditions or permissions are not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description reiterates that only supplied fields are changed and highlights required parameter (project_id), but does not add new meaning beyond 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 tool updates incident configuration values for a project, specifying it is a partial update (only supplied fields are changed). It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools by focusing on incident configuration and including the endpoint path.

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 mentions 'only the supplied fields are changed' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list prerequisites or caveats. The context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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