create_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects of creating an incident, permission requirements, whether the incident is published to status pages, or any post-creation behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the required/optional split is an efficient way to convey the main call shape. The only structural weakness is the ambiguous use of "body" that conflates the wrapper parameter with the nested description field.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and the nested schema properties are individually well described. However, with no annotations and a nested 6-field object, the description omits two parameters, gives no behavioral caveats, and does not mention the vendor-linking or idempotency semantics that live only in the schema.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate; it restates title/severity/monitorId/body but omits two valid parameters entirely (serviceId, serviceIncidentId) even though their schema descriptions are meaningful. It also creates ambiguity by calling the nested detail field "body" when the top-level required parameter is also named "body", without clarifying the object-wrapping structure.

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?

"Create a manual incident" provides a specific verb and resource, and the word "manual" adds scope beyond a generic create. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby sibling create_status_page_incident, so an agent relies on domain knowledge to tell them apart.

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 "manual" qualifier implies this is for incidents declared by hand rather than detected automatically, which gives some usage context. But no alternative tools are named, no when-not-to-use conditions are stated, and there is no guidance on when create_status_page_incident or resolve_incident would be the better choice.

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