Trigger an incident

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the apiKey query authentication is not exposed, server-configured authentication must be used, custom payloads remain open JSON, and the call may notify recipients or change tenant data. This complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, starting with the action and endpoint before moving into authentication, payload flexibility, body fields, and safety requirements. The body field list is long but useful, and the reference link provides an external escape hatch. Minor redundancy exists with the title, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent trigger with open JSON payloads, the description covers authentication, required confirmation, tenant impact, body field names, and a documentation reference. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists and the reference link partially covers that gap. Overall it gives an agent enough to call the tool safely and correctly.

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 75%, but the body schema is just a generic open JSON ref. The description compensates by enumerating the relevant body fields (incidentDetails, recipients, properties, expirationInMinutes, etc.) and clarifying that path id is the integration function id via the endpoint template. The confirm parameter's const true requirement is also reinforced.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Trigger an incident') and the exact endpoint ('POST /api/integration/1/functions/{id}/triggers'), so an agent understands the operation and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like xmatters_trigger_an_event or xmatters_trigger_an_incident_form, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 important safety context ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true; may notify recipients or change tenant data') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as xmatters_trigger_an_event or xmatters_trigger_an_incident_form. Usage is only implied through the endpoint and trigger semantics.

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