Update an incident

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing patch semantics (omitted fields retain stored values), the API limitation on `assignee`, and a non-obvious side effect: the write creates its own timeline rows so the caller's event count is immediately stale. That is exactly the kind of surprise an agent needs warned about.

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?

Three tight sentences: the mutation scope leads, the patch-semantics rule follows, and the return/side-effect note closes. No filler, and the caveats are front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the brief return-shape note plus the stale-event-count warning is sufficient. Minor gaps remain: the updatable `description` field is unmentioned and no permission/authorization context is given for a mutation, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate; it names status, severity and name but not the settable `description`, and gives no enum values or format hints for those fields. It does add the `assignee` exclusion, which the schema does not encode. Baseline-adjacent 3 given partial compensation for a coverage gap.

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 concrete verb and resource plus the three main mutable fields (status, severity, name), which is specific enough to distinguish it from read tools like get_incident. However it omits the settable `description` field and does not distinguish itself from mutation siblings such as merge_incidents, unmerge_incidents or mute_incident.

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 (a patch-style update of an existing incident) and it usefully rules out `assignee` as not settable via the public API, but it never states when to prefer this tool over merge_incidents, mute_incident, or update-adjacent siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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