defender_update_incident

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and reveals a genuinely non-obvious runtime behavior: merged incidents are updated on the master incident with redirectedFrom reflecting the redirect — context an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations. It does not cover authorization prerequisites or failure modes, but given the annotations already carry the safety profile, the merge caveat earns real credit.

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?

Two sentences and roughly 40 words, with the core action front-loaded and the edge case deferred to a separate sentence. The parenthetical '(a triage write)' and the field enumeration slightly duplicate schema content, but neither wastes space. Appropriately sized for a six-parameter write tool.

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 purpose and the trickiest behavioral edge case (merge redirect), so an agent can call it correctly in common scenarios. It leaves two gaps: no disambiguation from defender_resolve_incident for closing an incident, and no disclosure of cross-field dependencies (e.g., whether resolving via status requires classification or determination) — a real risk for a write tool with no output schema. Solid, but not complete for an agent choosing among incident-write siblings.

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% — every parameter (incident_id, status, assigned_to, custom_tags, classification, determination) already has a meaningful description, including the important note that custom_tags 'replaces the existing tag set'. The description merely enumerates field names and adds no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('incident'), and exact field scope ('status, assignee, classification, determination and custom tags'), so an agent can determine what the tool does at a glance. The 'triage write' framing plus a sibling list dominated by get_* operations makes the distinction easy, but it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, leaving a small amount to inference.

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?

'a triage write' provides implied context that this is the general-purpose incident update tool, which separates it from the many read-only siblings. However, it never states when to prefer this over the closely-related write siblings such as defender_resolve_incident, defender_update_alert, or defender_add_incident_comment, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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