Unmute an incident

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

Annotations declare non-read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing idempotent behavior ('A no-op if it was never muted, or already lapsed'), which tells the agent not to fear redundant calls. It stops short of naming auth/permission constraints, so not a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the idempotency caveat front-loaded. Every clause 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 need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the idempotency note, the description is nearly complete for this simple, single-required-param mutation, missing only usage routing against 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%, so the schema already fully documents incident_id and the account-override header. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Lift this incident's mute early'), making the operation unmistakable and clearly differentiating it from the sibling mute_incident. An agent can tell instantly what this does.

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 semantics rather than stated: the no-op behavior tells the agent it is safe to call regardless of mute state, but the description never says when to prefer this over update_incident or other incident mutations. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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