defender_resolve_incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description stays consistent with them. It adds real behavioral detail: the traversal of merge history, the exact returned fields, and the distinction between live incidents (empty redirectedFrom) and merged ones.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then provide the return contract and the practical caveat. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is enough: it names the input, defines the output fields and their semantics, and explains the live vs merged behavior. An agent can invoke it and interpret the result correctly without additional documentation.

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 100% and the single parameter already specifies 'The incident ID, as shown in the Defender portal and the Graph API.' The description only refers to 'an incident' generally and adds no format, scope, or accepted-value constraints beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 leads with a specific action ('Follow the merge history of an incident to its master') on a specific resource, and clarifies exactly what is returned (master incident, incidentId, redirectedFrom). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like defender_get_incident and defender_list_incidents.

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 phrase 'call it to learn where an incident went' states the intended invocation context, and the note that server writes already do this implies it is mainly needed for externally sourced or historical IDs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to call, but the use case is clear enough.

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