Update Incident Custom Field Selection

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the lower bar applies. The description adds valuable deprecation context but says nothing about permissions, what a partial update does to unspecified fields, or the response, leaving gaps beyond the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the deprecation warning is front-loaded so an agent sees it before anything else.

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 deprecated mutation tool with a nested payload and an output schema, the description covers the critical routing information (deprecated, use form fields) but omits payload semantics and update behavior. Adequate to steer an agent away, thin if it must actually be invoked.

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 50%, and the description adds nothing beyond 'by id' — it never explains the nested `data.attributes` payload (`value` vs `selected_option_ids`) or that the body `id` is ignored. Since coverage is below the 80% baseline, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific incident custom field selection by id'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling update_incident_form_field_selection. Its deprecation banner further distinguishes it, though the phrase is terse.

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?

It explicitly warns '[DEPRECATED] Use form field endpoints instead,' giving a clear when-not-to-use signal and pointing to the alternative family. It doesn't explain the legacy scenario where an agent might still need this tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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