update_status_page_incident

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the schema: any edit marks the publication as human-authored and stops the auto-resolve pipeline from closing it. This is valuable context that an agent would not know from the schema alone. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job of surfacing this side effect. It doesn't mention other potential side effects like notifications to subscribers, but the disclosed side effect is significant.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second discloses the critical side effect. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word 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 PATCH update tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the action, the fields, and the key side effect. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the state field has allowed values, but the schema already does that. The description adds the human-authored side effect, which is the main non-obvious context.

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 PATCH semantics, which clarifies that only provided fields are updated, and it mentions the fields that can be changed. However, it doesn't add detail beyond the schema for individual parameters, such as the meaning of clearing severity. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers everything.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('published incident'), and the exact fields that can be changed ('title, severity or state'). It also clarifies the PATCH semantics, which distinguishes it from a full replacement update. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_status_page_incident or create_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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to modify an already-published incident's title, severity, or state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the PATCH semantics and the focus on 'published incident' provide clear context. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for creating incidents or adding updates), but the context is strong.

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