Update incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly warns 'Mutates state,' which clearly signals that this is a side-effecting operation. It also discloses the status subset and the optional note behavior, giving the agent a solid behavioral picture beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the mutation warning earns its place as a separate, high-signal disclosure.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: target status and optional note. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance around interacting with incident lifecycle siblings, but the essential call semantics are present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by enumerating the intended status values and by saying the note is optional, but it does not explain the note's role or incident_id beyond what the schema already shows. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 ('Move') with a clear resource ('an incident') and target state ('acknowledged/mitigated/resolved'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling status-related tools like open_incident, but the listed statuses narrow the intent well.

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?

The action 'Move an incident to a new status...' implies that the tool is for status transitions, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as open_incident, leaving some room for confusion.

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