update_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could benefit from more detail given the 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?

For a mutation tool with 14 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the name 'update_incident', failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an existing incident in ServiceNow' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('incident'), but it's vague about what specific aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_incident' or 'update_change_request'. It's a basic statement of purpose without specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_incident' or 'create_incident', nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The description merely states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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