post_status_page_incident_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as subscriber notifications (only implied by the 'notifySubscribers' parameter), whether the incident's main status is updated, or any state requirements. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise (3 lines plus bullet points) and front-loaded with the action. It uses clear formatting to separate required and optional fields. Minor improvement would be to explicitly list page_id and incident_id as required parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters with a nested object and output schema exists, the description covers the core update action but fails to explain two of the three top-level parameters (page_id, incident_id). The missing context for these parameters reduces completeness. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the gaps are notable.

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?

The description highlights the key subfields (body, status, notifySubscribers, affectedComponents) and their purpose, adding value beyond the schema's internal descriptions. However, it omits explanation for the top-level parameters 'page_id' and 'incident_id', which are required and not self-explanatory from their names alone. The schema provides descriptions for nested subfields, so baseline is 3.

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 'Post a timeline update on a status page incident' specifies a clear action (post) and resource (timeline update on incident). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_status_page_incident' (creates new incident) and 'publish_status_page_incident' (publishes 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?

The description lists required and optional fields but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating or publishing an incident. It implicitly assumes the incident exists but does not state prerequisites or provide explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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