Post Incident Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the supplied state becomes the incident's current state, and the version-specific caveat that API updates do not email subscribers on Kener 4.1.7 and earlier (with issue reference). It does not cover auth/permission requirements or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the sibling pointer and the version caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, its state side effect, the closing alternative, and a notable behavioral caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, including the enum for state, so the schema already documents all three parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description only adds the semantic point that the state value becomes the incident's current state, which is minor beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Post a public update on an incident and set its state'), explicitly names the sibling it is not for ('To close an incident, use resolve_incident'), and clarifies the side effect that the supplied state becomes the incident's current state.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance plus the alternative tool by name ('To close an incident, use resolve_incident'), so an agent can route between post_incident_update and resolve_incident without inspecting either schema.

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