create_status_page_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it clearly states the incident is published and that title/body are customer-visible, which is important safety context. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether notifications are triggered, whether creation is immediate/reversible, or what response is returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second delivers the critical customer-visibility constraint. The warning is front-loaded where it will be noticed.

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 combination of full schema coverage and the customer-visibility warning is enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return value and post-creation effects unstated, and it does not address how this tool relates to incident publication/update siblings.

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 schema already covers all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level value by warning that both title and body are shown to customers and must not contain internal data—this is not fully stated in the bodyMarkdown schema description.

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 identifies the specific action ('Publish a hand-written incident') and resource ('status page'), and the customer-facing warning helps distinguish it from internal incident tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_incident_publication or update_status_page_incident, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'hand-written incident' implies this is for manually authored incidents, and the customer-exposure warning implies not to use it for internal or automated content. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as create_incident_publication.

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