update_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mutation nature and the Personal-edition prerequisite, but says nothing about whether updates are idempotent, whether subscribers are notified, what happens to an already-resolved incident, or required permissions.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing to trim.

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 three-parameter required mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: action and edition requirement are covered. It leaves open the effect on subscribers, status transition validity, and whether the tool fails on a resolved incident.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the status value set. The description adds no meaning beyond 'status update' — no format hints for message, no constraints on incident_id.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Post a status update to an existing status page incident,' which clearly separates it from create_incident in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the 'existing' qualifier implies the distinction.

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 it (only for incidents that already exist) and states an edition prerequisite, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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