resolve_incident

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool sets the state to 'Resolved', which implies a write operation, but omits critical details: required permissions (e.g., can_edit_incident), side effects (e.g., notifications, closing timers), idempotency, or reversibility. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear, bullet-like argument list. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (unmentioned), three parameters, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral warnings, and does not describe the return value. An agent cannot fully assess when to invoke this tool or what to expect beyond the primary state change.

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?

The description adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema. For 'number_or_sys_id' it clarifies acceptance of either number or system ID. 'close_notes' gets a contextual explanation. 'close_code' provides concrete examples ('Solved (Permanently)', 'Solved (Workaround)'). With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is valuable, though the required/non-required distinction is left to 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Resolve'), the resource ('incident'), and the specific outcome ('by setting its state to Resolved'). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_incident and search_incidents, as resolve is a distinct operation.

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 such as update_incident or add_comment. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., incident must be open), excluded scenarios (e.g., already resolved), or compare with sibling tools.

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