Unmerge incidents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that incidents become standalone, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation requires specific permissions, what happens if an incident is not part of the given incident_id, or any rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and scope, with the inverse-of-merge statement adding efficient orientation. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with partial schema coverage and no explicit usage guidance or permission details, the description is minimal but sufficient to call the tool correctly, though it could do more to clarify constraints and outcomes.

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%, with incident_id and X-Orchestra-Account-Id documented in the schema. The description adds the concept of detaching from a path incident and restoring targets as standalone, but does not clarify the relationship between incidentIds (targets) and incident_id beyond what the schema already indicates, nor does it compensate for the undocumented incidentIds parameter.

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 (detach) and resource (incidents named in body from incident in path) and clarifies the effect (restore as standalone). It does not explicitly name the sibling merge_incidents, though 'The exact inverse of merge' implicitly references it, which provides some sibling linkage but not by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the inverse-of-merge framing, which helps an agent understand the operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use context, no exclusions, and the alternative merge_incidents is not named. Adequate but with clear routing gaps.

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