manage_dlp_incidents

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety. The description adds value by specifying actions like 'user notifications and remediation actions,' which imply side effects beyond data retrieval. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits like what 'resolve' or 'escalate' entail operationally.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key actions. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations covering basic hints, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, which are crucial for a management tool with multiple actions. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which it doesn't fully meet.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 6 parameters, including enums for 'action,' 'severity,' and 'status.' The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic mention of 'investigate and manage,' so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions.

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's purpose as 'investigate and manage DLP policy violations and incidents' with specific actions like 'user notifications and remediation actions.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'manage_dlp_policies' by focusing on incidents rather than policies, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other incident-related tools like 'manage_alerts.'

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions actions like 'list, get, resolve, escalate' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context on sibling tools like 'manage_alerts' or 'search_audit_log,' the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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