Update Incident Form Field Selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the update merges with or replaces existing selections, what happens to fields omitted from `data`, or that the `id` inside `data` is ignored.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is no front-loaded guidance about the payload shape that the reader will need immediately.

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?

This is a mutation tool taking a deeply nested `attributes` object with ten mutually exclusive selection fields; an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description gives no help on which selection fields map to which field kinds or on partial-update behavior. For a nested-payload write tool this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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 description coverage is only 50%: `id` is well documented while the `data` wrapper has no description at the top level. The description's "by id" merely restates the schema's own id documentation and says nothing about the nested `attributes` payload, so it fails to compensate for the 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 specific verb and resource ("Update a specific incident form field selection") and its identifying key ("by id"), which is unambiguous about what is being mutated. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also mutate form-related resources (update_form_field, update_incident_custom_field_selection, update_form_field_option), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_incident_form_field_selection / list_incident_form_field_selections / update_incident_custom_field_selection, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the write counterpart to the getter.

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