pagerduty_resolve_incident

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., sending notifications), required permissions, or the impact on the incident lifecycle. The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of important context.

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 extremely concise (single sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured without losing clarity.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is the bare minimum. It lacks context about what happens after resolution (e.g., incident status changes, notifications). Given no annotations to supplement, the description should be more 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds the phrase 'by ID' which aligns with the incident_id parameter but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'Resolve a PagerDuty incident by ID' clearly states the verb (resolve), resource (PagerDuty incident), and method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pagerduty_acknowledge_incident and pagerduty_create_incident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pagerduty_acknowledge_incident or general incident management. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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