update_incident

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

Annotations already cover destructive and readiness profile, so the description usefully adds PATCH-only behavior, support for custom fields, forbidden fields, and the lack of automatic state-name conversion. These details go beyond the structured annotations and help agents avoid common mistakes.

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 brief, stays on topic, and front-loads the important PATCH behavior before the more specialized resolution note. Each sentence adds value, though some shorthand like 'number or sys_*' could be more explicit for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the most critical constraints and gives targeted state-resolution guidance. However, identifier semantics are missing, and there is no guidance on prerequisites or alternative tool selection, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description has the full burden of explaining the two parameters. It explains that fields must be non-empty and restricts certain field names, but it never clarifies the identifier parameter, what string format is expected, or exactly which fields are allowed.

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 starts with a specific action: 'Altera apenas os campos fornecidos via PATCH' (changes only the fields provided via PATCH), including custom fields. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_incident and list_incidents, and from create_incident, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 gives concrete usage constraints: fields must not be empty, number and sys_* are not allowed, and resolution requires state plus instance-required fields. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over create_incident or add_incident_comment, leaving some usage routing implicit.

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