close_incident_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It explains parameter meanings but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or the outcome of closing an incident. This is a significant gap 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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and then explaining the second parameter. There is no redundant or verbose language; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 it is a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the action and parameters adequately. However, it omits behavioral details such as idempotency, effects on the incident, or return values, leaving some uncertainty for an agent. It covers the basics but not the full context.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by defining incident_id as a unique identifier with an example and explaining should_qualify_monitor as a boolean for monitor qualification. This covers both parameters, though it leaves some domain-specific details unstated.

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 'Close an incident by id' with an example, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_incident_by_id, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open_incident_by_id) or any exclusions. The intended use is inferable from the tool name and description, so it is not entirely absent.

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