Open incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly state 'Mutates server-side state,' which is a meaningful side-effect warning beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or the consequences of repeated calls, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the mutation warning. There is no filler, no repetition, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is a simple flat 3-parameter mutation with an output schema, so return values do not need deep explanation. Yet the definition omits parameter semantics and usage alternatives, and with no annotations it is only minimally adequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'service'; it does not explain 'summary' or 'severity' or how they relate. Since low schema coverage requires the description to compensate, the lack of parameter detail is a clear shortfall.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a new incident against a service'), and the qualifier 'new' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_incidents and update_incident. The meaning is immediate and not a mere restatement of the title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention list_incidents for viewing incidents, update_incident for modifying existing ones, or any conditions that should prevent use. The only implicit context is 'against a service,' which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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