create_incident_publication

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the title templating behavior (internal title never exposed), which is a valuable transparency point. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it sends notifications, modifies other resources), permission requirements, or reversibility. For a write operation, this is a moderate disclosure but incomplete.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and adds a key caveat about title templating. It is concise without being terse, and the dash-separated clause adds necessary context without excess verbosity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not cover error conditions, return values, or prerequisites beyond 'EXISTING'. It also does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., create_status_page_incident). For a mutation with two required parameters, the description is adequate but lacks depth that an agent might need for robust invocation.

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 already explains all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameters; it only mentions title templating, which is a behavioral trait rather than a parameter detail. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('an EXISTING internal incident onto a status page'), and adds a clarifying detail about title templating that distinguishes it from simply creating a status page incident. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_status_page_incident and delete_incident_publication.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over creating a status page incident manually, nor any prerequisites beyond the incident existing. The phrase 'EXISTING' implies a condition, but there is no explicit routing to or away from sibling tools.

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