post_status_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior: the message is timestamped and attributed to 'incident-commander-mcp', and a valid incident_id is required. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: it states the action, provides usage guidance, and specifies prerequisites and side effects. 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 simple 2-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, required inputs, and behavioral details (timestamping and attribution). No critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (incident_id and message) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description reinforces usage but does not add significant new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource: 'Appends a timeline entry to an existing incident record.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_rollback or create_incident_ticket, as it is the only tool that logs to an existing incident's timeline.

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 provides clear context on when to use: 'Use this to log investigation findings, actions taken, or status changes during an ongoing incident.' It implies the tool is for adding updates rather than creating new incidents or performing rollbacks, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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