Update Incident

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

Annotations already disclose this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds conditional requirements for resolution, but does not reveal side effects, permission needs, or the nature of updates (e.g., partial vs. full overwrite). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a well-organized args list and a return statement. It is concise and wastes no words, though the args list partially duplicates schema descriptions.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers core usage but provides a vague 'Updated incident details' return value. It also fails to mention the response_format parameter. The schema fills gaps, so overall completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds some value by restating state mappings and the required-when-resolving condition, but it omits several schema parameters (impact, urgency, comments, work_notes, response_format) and provides no extra detail beyond the schema for most fields.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'a ServiceNow incident', listing specific fields like state, assignment, priority, and 'any field'. It distinguishes itself from generic alternatives like servicenow_update_record by being incident-specific and enumerating relevant fields.

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 conveys clear context for updating incidents and includes conditional usage guidance (resolution_code and resolution_notes are required when resolving). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the incident-specific focus provides enough direction for the agent.

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