Update Incident

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important partial-update behavior: only provided arguments are sent, so unspecified fields remain untouched. It specifically highlights that lifecycle status is left untouched unless supplied, which is valuable for avoiding accidental status changes.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. The purpose and partial-update constraint are front-loaded, making it easy to scan before consulting the schema.

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?

The description is complete for a rich 18-parameter update tool whose schema documents every parameter and whose annotations cover idempotency and destructive behavior. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, though it could say more about when to choose this tool over incident sub-resource update tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that all optional fields are partial-update fields and that status must be explicitly set to change the lifecycle state.

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 and resource: update native incident fields via PUT /v1/incidents/{id}. It also distinguishes native incident fields from sibling sub-resource tools by focusing on the incident itself, though it does not name alternatives such as update_incident_sub_status or update_incident_custom_field_selection.

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 implies when to use it by saying it updates native incident fields and only sends supplied arguments. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings like create_incident, get_incident, or the various incident sub-resource update tools.

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