update_security_incident

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a behavioral constraint not in annotations. However, it does not describe side effects or error handling, so only moderate added value.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and a key requirement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on partial updates, response behavior, or field validation, making it only slightly above average.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description restates that 'fields' can update state, severity, containment_status etc., but adds no new information beyond the schema. Score is baseline due to high schema coverage.

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 'Update a security incident record' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'update_incident' by the 'security' qualifier, though it could be more explicit about the tool's scope.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_record' or 'update_incident'. It only mentions a prerequisite condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but no context on when to choose this tool.

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