clm_incident_command_update_incident

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

Annotations already mark the operation as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable side-effect context by disclosing that shipment incident counts are recalculated and thumbnail generation is re-queued for updated files, which goes beyond the structured annotation signals.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the fields being updated before the side effects. Every phrase adds useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers the main fields and important side effects, but it does not clarify whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or cleared, which is a meaningful gap for an update command.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps Remark, Files, and IncidentType to 'remark, attached files, and finding type', but it does not explicitly identify ItemId as the incident identifier or explain file object shape and IncidentType integer values.

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 action, 'Updates', a resource, 'an existing incident', and the exact fields involved: remark, attached files, and finding type. This clearly distinguishes it from incident creation and deletion siblings.

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 phrase 'existing incident' gives clear context that this tool is for modifying an already-created incident rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly reference alternatives like create_incident or delete_incident, so it stops short of a 5.

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