update_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this is a mutating operation (update), explains the effect of each parameter, and warns that resolving/closing may be rejected by the backend. It does not mention idempotency, error handling for missing incidents, or authentication requirements, but the provided details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence summary of the action, then a one-sentence usage context, then a constraint, then a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds unique information; there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers all parameters, provides a return format, and includes a key behavioral caveat (rejection on missing resolution fields). It is almost complete for a mutation tool with no annotations, but it does not specify what happens if the incident number does not exist or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so: number is given an example ('INC0010001'), work_notes is described as 'append to the (internal) work notes journal', and state is documented with both numeric codes and names, plus a note about additional fields required by ServiceNow. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('update'), resource ('existing incident'), and method ('by number'). It explicitly lists the two possible actions (append work notes and/or change state), which distinguishes it from siblings create_incident and query_incidents.

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 advises when to use the tool ('record progress on a ticket or move it through its lifecycle') and states a critical constraint ('at least one of work_notes or state must be provided'). It also warns about potential rejection when resolving/closing if resolution fields are missing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_incident or query_incidents.

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