resolve_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Resolve' and returns 'Updated incident information', but does not explain side effects, whether the incident must be acknowledged first, permission requirements, or the meaning of 'resolved' in PagerDuty.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are mostly redundant with the schema, but there is no fluff or wasted words, so conciseness is decent.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations. The output schema exists, so return values are covered indirectly, but the description lacks critical context: when to resolve versus acknowledge, expected incident state, potential side effects, and any prerequisites. The simple one-line purpose is not enough for this action-oriented tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by defining incident_id as 'PagerDuty incident ID' and resolution as 'notes explaining how the incident was fixed'. This is slightly more informative than the schema's plain type/title fields but still lacks examples or format details.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'incident', with a mention of resolution notes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'acknowledge_incident', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used instead of alternatives like 'acknowledge_incident' or 'add_incident_note', nor any prerequisites or preconditions for resolving an incident.

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