Modify an existing incident's fields, such as state or urgency, by providing its system ID and key-value pairs.
Update fields on an existing incident (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update (e.g., {"state": "2", "urgency": "1"}) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the incident |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by requiring WRITE_ENABLED=true, a configuration prerequisite not evident from schema or annotations. It is consistent with idempotentHint=true, as updating fields is idempotent.
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?
One concise sentence that immediately states the action, target, and a key prerequisite. No filler words or redundant phrasing.
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 simple two-parameter update tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does and a key requirement. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema, and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for further detail.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (sys_id, fields). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what is already 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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Update fields') and resource ('existing incident'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_incident, resolve_incident, and close_incident. It also scopes the update to fields, matching the parameter schema.
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?
Description provides a clear prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and implies usage context: when you have an existing incident's sys_id and want to modify fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool name and incident-specific scope make when to use it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.