update_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the tool is a mutation (update) on an existing incident, which implies write side effects. However, it does not mention whether partial updates are allowed, whether all fields are updatable, what happens on failure (e.g., incident not found), or authentication/permission requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of a one-liner summary and a docstring-style Args block. The key info is front-loaded. However, the Args section uses a format that may be less readable in some plain-text contexts, and it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 that no annotations exist, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It informs about update semantics, but lacks details on return values (despite an output schema existing), error handling, rate limits, or field validation. For a tool with two parameters and a nested object, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully bears the responsibility. It explains the first parameter (number_or_sys_id) with a concrete example (INC0010023) and indicates it can also accept a sys_id. For the fields parameter, it provides a usage example format. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, which only states type and title. However, it does not document all possible field names or values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 updates fields on an existing incident, specifying the resource (incident) and action (update). The sibling tools include create_incident and resolve_incident, so this description effectively distinguishes itself as a general-purpose field update tool.

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 implicitly indicates usage when updating existing incidents, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that resolving an incident should use resolve_incident instead, or that updating status to '6' (resolved) might trigger different side effects. The usage is clear for common cases but lacks explicit guidance.

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