Resolve incident

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it reads Status first, no-ops if already closed, and may write either Status or a Quick Action. This enriches the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second covers idempotent preconditions, and the third defines the write side effects. No redundant wording.

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 two-parameter write tool with both schema and output schema present, the description covers the core action, the idempotent edge case, and the write scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the schema fully documents rec_id and resolution_note. The description only adds the label 'optional close note,' which doesn't materially extend what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Mark an incident resolved,' and specifies exactly what the tool does: reads Status, conditionally no-ops, writes Status/Quick Action, and optionally writes a close note. This clearly separates it from siblings get_incident and add_note, which read or attach notes rather than change resolution 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when an incident should be marked resolved. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the read-then-write behavior and optional close-note wording make the intended invocation context obvious.

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