Update fields on an existing incident (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update fields on an existing incident (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update (e.g., {"state": "2", "urgency": "1"}) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the incident |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "assigned_to": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "caller_id": {},
+ "category": {},
+ "close_code": {},
+ "close_notes": {},
+ "cmdb_ci": {},
+ "comments": {},
+ "contact_type": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "hold_reason": {},
+ "impact": {},
+ "location": {},
+ "priority": {},
+ "resolved_at": {},
+ "resolved_by": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "subcategory": {},
+ "urgency": {},
+ "watch_list": {},
+ "work_notes": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds an important operational prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') beyond the annotations. It does not explain partial-update behavior, whether unspecified fields remain untouched, or what happens to fields not included in the update map.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The permission prerequisite is included compactly in parentheses.
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 nested-field update tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits update semantics, field expectations, and routing guidance among incident-related siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.
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 the schema already documents sys_id and the fields object with an example. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the structured 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing incident'. It clearly distinguishes modification of an existing incident from creation or resolution, but does not differentiate itself from the many other update_* siblings or incident lifecycle tools such as resolve_incident and close_incident.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Update fields on an existing incident', and the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite gives useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of siblings like resolve_incident, close_incident, add_work_note, or update_security_incident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.