Create Incident

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), safe (destructiveHint=false) and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the incident is public, it starts immediately in INVESTIGATING, and a version-specific caveat (Kener 4.1.7 and earlier do not email subscribers, #886) warns of a surprising side effect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and only the optional attachments and the caveat following. Nothing is wasted, though the issue-reference aside is slightly tangential to invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, optional inputs, and a notable behavioral quirk. For a single required-parameter creation tool it is nearly complete, lacking only explicit permission/visibility details.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only a small pointer (tags come from list_monitors) and otherwise repeats schema-level facts like the default INVESTIGATING state and optional first update.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a public incident') plus scope ('starting now, in state INVESTIGATING'), which clearly differentiates it from the read-oriented siblings (list_incidents, get_incident) and resolve_incident. It also names list_monitors as the source of monitor tags.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: optional behaviors (attach monitors, post a first update) and the direction to get tags from list_monitors give some context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to post_incident_update or resolve_incident, and no exclusions.

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