Close Incident

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'This changes the incident state' and specifying the exact state value. It also notes the prerequisite about Resolved state. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with this, and the description adds useful context about state transitions without contradicting any annotation.

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-loaded with the primary action, and includes an IMPORTANT warning that draws attention to the key side effect. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant or extraneous text.

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 simple state-change operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the state change, and a usage prerequisite. It does not explain return values or error behaviors, but these are not critical for this tool type, and the annotations provide additional context (idempotency, non-destructiveness). Overall, it is sufficiently 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 100%, so all parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description's mention of state (Closed) implicitly relates to the impact of parameters like close_code and close_notes without elaborating on them.

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's function: 'Close an incident by setting state to Closed (7).' This is a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_incident by naming the target state (Closed vs. Resolved). The warning about the incident typically being in Resolved state also differentiates it from other state-changing tools.

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 clear contextual guidance: 'The incident should typically be in Resolved state before closing, though this depends on instance configuration.' This implies the appropriate time to use the tool and a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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