incident_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively explains the side effects: 'clearing the error state and allowing the process to continue or be retried'. Missing auth requirements, reversibility details, or rate limit warnings that would make it comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences totaling 19 words. First sentence captures the action, mechanism, and outcome; second provides the type constraint. No wasted words, well front-loaded with 'Resolve an incident' immediately identifying the operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation and side effects but has gaps regarding return values, error conditions (e.g., if incident not found or not resolvable), or what distinguishes custom vs. non-custom incident types.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (baseline 4). The description adds semantic value by noting the operation is performed 'by ID', alerting the agent that an identifier conceptually applies even though not reflected in the schema properties. Compensates for empty schema with implicit parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves an incident by ID, clearing error states and allowing process continuation. It specifies the resource (incident) and mechanism (clearing error state), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it's 'Only applicable to custom incident types', differentiating it from generic incident operations.

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 explicit constraint 'Only applicable to custom incident types' indicating when NOT to use it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like task_resolve or provide guidance on when to prefer this over simply retrying jobs or using other incident tools.

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