Mute an incident

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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: idempotent no-op behavior on repeat calls and a clear temporal boundary (until the account's alert budget next refills). It does not mention auth/permission nuances, but the schema already documents the account-override semantics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, with zero filler. Every clause (duration, idempotency) earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a simple mute mutation the description is nearly complete, with the only gap being no explicit routing to the mute/unmute/update incident siblings.

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%, including an in-depth explanation of the X-Orchestra-Account-Id override, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable given full coverage but leaves no incremental value; 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 ('Silence further alerts on this incident'), which is clearly a mute action rather than a generic update. It adds the temporal scope (until the alert budget refills) that disambiguates from a permanent change, though it never names the obvious counterpart unmute_incident to sharpen 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as update_incident, merge_incidents, or unmute_incident. The only usage-relevant statement is the idempotency note ('Already muted is a no-op'), which is behavioral rather than a when-to-use routing hint.

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