swsd_link_solution_to_incident

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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the read-modify-write process, the distinction between read/write shapes, idempotency, and the lack of retry. 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?

Concise three-sentence description, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Covers essential behavioral aspects for a write tool: process, idempotency, failure behavior. No output schema, but description is sufficient for an API with simple success/failure. Could mention return value, but not critical.

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%, but description adds value by explaining the auto-detection of internal vs. human-facing IDs via digit count, which is not in the schema description. This aids correct parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Attach a knowledge-base solution to an incident.' Differentiated from siblings like swsd_update_incident and swsd_create_incident by specifying the linking operation.

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?

Provides context on when to use (linking solutions), explains idempotent behavior, and states no retry on transient failure. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list and description imply no need for alternative guidance.

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