swsd_update_incident_state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure' and the fact that state names are tenant-specific — which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying whether an invalid or illegal transition errors out or silently no-ops.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the wrapper rationale, and every sentence carries usable information. It loses a point for duplicating the common state-name list that already appears verbatim in the schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the alternative tool, retry behavior, and tenant-specificity of state names. It does not address what a failed or rejected transition returns, which is the main remaining gap.

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 the schema already documents both id and state, including the auto-detection of id by digit count. The description largely repeats the schema's state-value list rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (transition an SWSD incident to a new state) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling swsd_update_incident by calling itself a safer, narrower wrapper. An agent can select this over the general update tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (call swsd_get_incident first to see the current state) and names the alternative it is meant to replace (swsd_update_incident) with the reason to prefer it. The when-to-use condition is concrete rather than implied.

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