waroom_update_incident_status

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 disclosure. It states the tool updates incident status, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by including key usage context, but as-is, it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the input schema is well-documented, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for an update operation.

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 description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (incident_uuid as a UUID and status with an enum). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 action ('update') and resource ('incident status') in Japanese, which translates to 'Update incident status.' This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'waroom_update_incident_labels' or 'waroom_update_incident_severity,' which also update incidents but target different attributes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing incident UUID), contrast with tools like 'waroom_get_incident_details' for reading status, or mention when not to use it (e.g., for creating incidents). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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