update_incident

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

The description adds the important behavioral context that write permissions are needed, which is not provided by the annotations. It does not contradict the existing annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.).

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key requirement without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 is adequate for a simple update tool with high schema coverage and clear annotations. However, it does not mention return values or potential side effects, and given the complexity of incident updates, a bit more context could be helpful.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update fields') and the resource ('existing incident'), with a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'resolve_incident' or 'close_incident'.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), guiding when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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