update_incident

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing a non-obvious visibility lifecycle: content stays private until publishPostmortem=true, then surfaces on the public status page only once the incident is resolved, and false reverts it. It also discloses the empty-string-clears convention that no structured field states.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core operation (set/clear root cause and postmortem) is front-loaded before the publishing caveat. Slightly long clauses, but every clause 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and field semantics. It stops short of documenting auth/permission requirements or what the response looks like, but those gaps are minor given the audience.

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 50% and the three undocumented parameters (rootCause, postmortem, publishPostmortem) are exactly the ones the description explains: length limits, markdown format for the postmortem, publish semantics, and empty-string clearing. It does not clarify the null-vs-empty-string distinction even though the schema allows null for both text fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('set or clear') applied to two named fields of a named resource (incident's root cause and postmortem). An agent can identify the operation immediately, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like post_incident_update or acknowledge_incident.

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 only implied: the description explains what the fields mean and how publishing works, but never says when to reach for this tool instead of post_incident_update or get_incident, nor any prerequisites such as needing the incident to exist or be resolved. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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