Update Incident Sub Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. However the description adds nothing beyond 'by id' — it does not disclose that only assigned_at is meaningfully mutable, nor that resources are addressed via path rather than payload id, which the schema calls out as a trap.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from distilling it.

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 nested-object mutation tool this is thin: it omits the tool's actual scope (assigned_at timestamp only), the path-vs-body id convention, and any pointer to update_incident for real sub-status reassignment. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the operational caveats an agent needs are missing.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — the sole clue 'by id' repeats what the schema already says. The important semantic (that the nested data.id is ignored and data.attributes.sub_status_id should not be used for reassignment) lives entirely in the schema.

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?

It names a verb and resource ('Update a ... incident_sub_status by id'), but it essentially restates the name and title without saying what about the sub-status can actually be changed. It also fails to distinguish itself from nearby siblings like update_incident or update_sub_status, which an agent will confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The most critical routing fact — that to change an incident's sub-status you must PATCH /incidents/:id and this tool only moves the assigned_at timestamp — is buried in a nested schema property rather than the description.

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