create_status_page_incident_update

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits beyond the schema: (1) updates are append-only with no edit or delete, and (2) the body is customer-facing, so probe output or internal names must never be included. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to call this tool and how to phrase the body. However, it doesn't mention that certain 'kind' values advance the publication's state, which is a behavioral side effect an agent should know. The schema does mention this, but the description could have reinforced it.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the critical constraint (append-only) is stated immediately, and the customer-facing warning is a single concise sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does, its append-only nature, and the content restrictions. It doesn't explain the state-advancing side effect of certain 'kind' values, but the schema already documents that. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without opening 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the customer-facing warning for bodyMarkdown and the append-only constraint, which gives extra meaning to the bodyMarkdown parameter. However, it doesn't add detail about pageIdentifier or publicationUid beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Append'), a specific resource ('narrative update to a published incident'), and a critical scope constraint ('APPEND-ONLY — no edit or delete'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_status_page_incident and create_status_page_incident, which operate on different resources or with different semantics.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to add a narrative update to an existing published incident. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the append-only constraint and the customer-facing warning provide strong context. The sibling list includes create_status_page_incident and update_status_page_incident, and the description's emphasis on append-only helps an agent avoid confusing this with an update tool.

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