Update a security incident record (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update a security incident record (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update (state, severity, containment_status, etc.) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the security incident |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "affected_cis": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "category": {},
+ "containment_status": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "severity": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "subcategory": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful write-enabled precondition, but does not explain side effects, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, or what the operation returns.
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. It is terse but well structured; the only weakness is that it omits useful context rather than being verbose.
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?
This is a mutation tool with nested fields and no output schema. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers field names, but the description is still minimal: it does not clarify expected outcomes, update semantics, or differentiation from related update tools.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the allowed nested fields. The description adds no parameter syntax, formatting, or required-value guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb and resource: update a security incident record. It does not distinguish this from sibling update tools such as update_incident or update_grc_issue, but the purpose itself is 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 supplies one operational prerequisite, WRITE_ENABLED=true, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_incident or other update tools. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.