resolve_incident

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resolves an active incident and allows an optional message, but does not explain side effects (e.g., triggers alerts, updates timelines) or whether the incident must be active. This minimal information is insufficient for agents to anticipate consequences.

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 a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is efficiently front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers basic functionality. However, it omits context such as whether the incident must be in an 'active' state, required permissions, or how resolution interacts with status pages. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, but gaps remain.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a 'resolution message', which provides slight meaning beyond the schema, but both parameters lack detailed explanations of format, constraints, or typical values. The agent must infer functionality from names alone.

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 clearly states the action 'Resolve' and the resource 'active incident', establishing a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dismiss_status_page_incident, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as dismissing an incident or creating a resolution note separately. There is no context on prerequisites or constraints.

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