Merge incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: merging is one level deep and certain merges are rejected rather than nested. It stops short of noting that the operation is reversible via unmerge, which would matter for a mutation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the nesting constraint. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the tricky semantic (non-nesting merge) plus the account fallback is documented in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of any pointer to unmerge_incidents as the inverse/recovery path.

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 67%: incident_id and X-Orchestra-Account-Id carry descriptions, while incidentIds does not. The description frames the array as 'the incidents named in the request body,' implying plurality, but adds no format/count details (e.g., the max of 5) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits since the schema does most of the work.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('merge the incidents ... into the incident in the path') and clarifies the source/target roles, so the agent can tell it apart from update_incident or list_incidents. However, it never names the most confusable sibling, unmerge_incidents, which would have sharpened the distinction.

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?

It states the operational constraint (one-level-deep merging; rejections for nesting) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling operations such as unmerge_incidents or update_incident. Usage is implied by the merge semantics rather than stated.

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