Trigger an incident — Flow Trigger form

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, clarifies that it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and notes 'JSON remains open' to warn about free-form payloads. This goes beyond the basic annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose and endpoint, but includes extraneous details like 'The Python sample omits /xm/1, so it is not followed' which is irrelevant for an agent. The listing of body fields is useful but could be condensed. Overall, it is structured but not tightly concise.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers requirements (operator opt-in, confirm) and risks (may notify, change tenant data). It also provides a reference link for details. However, it omits any mention of the response format or status codes, which would be helpful for an agent to validate the call's success. Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 parameter is a generic recursive type with no field specificity. The description compensates by enumerating key body fields (incidentDetails, recipients, properties, etc.), giving meaning beyond the schema. It also clarifies the confirm parameter is mandatory and that path requires formId. This adds semantic value where the schema is vague.

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 the tool triggers an incident form via the specific endpoint POST /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/triggers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like xmatters_trigger_an_incident. The mention of 'Flow Trigger form' and explicit resource adds clarity, though the note about cURL/JavaScript examples introduces minor ambiguity about the exact implementation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative trigger tools (e.g., xmatters_trigger_an_incident or xmatters_trigger_an_event). It mentions operator opt-in and confirm, but provides no guidance on selection criteria or exclusions. The reference link offers external docs but does not help an agent decide between similar operations.

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