create_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The edition prerequisite is a useful disclosure, but nothing is said about side effects a status-page incident typically has (subscriber notifications, who can see it, whether the initial status defaults to investigating, or what is returned). For an un-annotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded ahead of the edition caveat. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves real gaps that are scored under completeness.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what creating an incident triggers and what comes back. Instead it covers only the edition requirement, leaving behavior and return expectations to inference.

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%, and each parameter (title, status, message, severity, component_ids) is already documented in the schema, including the default status and allowed values. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new incident') and scopes it to the status page, which lets an agent distinguish it from update_incident and create_maintenance among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the update/create-maintenance alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 one real usage gate — 'Requires the Personal edition' — which is genuinely actionable prerequisite info. It never says when to use this versus update_incident or create_maintenance, so the routing guidance is only implied by the verb.

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