update-incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'update specific fields' but does not clarify whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what the return value looks like, or any side effects or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence 'Update specific fields of an incident.' is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundant information, though it is perhaps too sparse to be maximally informative.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer expected return values, error conditions, or the exact behavior of wait_for_commit, leaving significant gaps for a simple update tool.

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 only 33% (only the 'updates' field has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining 'incident_id' or 'wait_for_commit', nor does it elaborate on the structure or allowed fields for the updates object beyond the schema's own brief description. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool updates an incident, with 'specific fields' implying a partial update rather than a full replacement. It distinguishes from siblings like update-alert by explicitly naming the resource (incident), though it does not elaborate on what specific fields can be updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., incident must exist), and no exclusions or use-case examples. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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